Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Some optimizations on top time selftest checks

PATCH In review [email protected] 4 participants 11 messages Jan 31, 2017 – Feb 2, 2017

lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author
#0 lore raw

cover Some optimizations on top time selftest checks

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

* On my local host test, the optimization went from 44 to 8 minutes with the following command

oe-selftest -r \
buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests.test_read_only_image \
bbtests.BitbakeTests.test_non_gplv3 \
buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests.test_ccache_tool \
buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests.test_read_only_image

* Before series applied

  2017-01-31 15:41:20 - test_read_only_image (oeqa.selftest.buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests) ... ok
  2017-01-31 16:20:12 - test_non_gplv3 (oeqa.selftest.bbtests.BitbakeTests) ... ok
  2017-01-31 16:22:55 - test_ccache_tool (oeqa.selftest.buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests) ... ok
  2017-01-31 16:23:49 - test_read_only_image (oeqa.selftest.buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests) ... ok

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 4 tests in 2662.852s

* After series applied

  2017-01-31 15:27:08 - test_read_only_image (oeqa.selftest.buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests) ... ok
  2017-01-31 15:27:14 - test_non_gplv3 (oeqa.selftest.bbtests.BitbakeTests) ... ok
  2017-01-31 15:33:42 - test_ccache_tool (oeqa.selftest.buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests) ... ok
  2017-01-31 15:34:30 - test_read_only_image (oeqa.selftest.buildoptions.ImageOptionsTests) ... ok

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 4 tests in 518.647s

[YOCTO #10874]

The following changes since commit d45d4a5a21ab4209b87331dddf515ecdb62367fa:

staging: Handle stale sysroot rebuild issue (2017-01-28 23:32:16 +0000)

are available in the git repository at:

git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib lsandov1/oe-selftest-optimizations
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=lsandov1/oe-selftest-optimizations

Leonardo Sandoval (4):
selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs'
feature
selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates selftest/bbtests: use write_config instead of local.conf file selftest/archiver: invalidate stamps instead of removing TMPDIR

 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py     | 4 ++--
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py      | 5 +----
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 8 ++------
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
author
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/4 selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to test read-only feature.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +1 -4
index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
@@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
 
     @testcase(1435)
     def test_read_only_image(self):
-        distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES')
-        if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in distro_features):
-            self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl in distro features')
         self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"')
-        bitbake("core-image-sato")
+        bitbake("core-image-minimal")
         # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
 
 class DiskMonTest(oeSelfTest):
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
#2 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature

Quoted 29 lines · On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600, [email protected]…

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to test
read-only feature.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]

tel.com>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----

 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +0 -0
index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
@@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):


     @testcase(1435)
     def test_read_only_image(self):
-        distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES') -        if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in distro_features):
-            self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl in distro features')
         self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"') -        bitbake("core-image-sato")
+        bitbake("core-image-minimal")

Quoted 1 line
         # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts

Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?

Cheers,

Richard

author
#3 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature

Quoted 21 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 19 lines · On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600, [email protected]…

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to test
read-only feature.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]

tel.com>

---
  meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +0 -0
index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
@@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
Quoted 14 lines

meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest): · line 49

Quoted 11 lines
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +0 -2
      @testcase(1435)
      def test_read_only_image(self):
-        distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES')
-        if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in

distro_features):
- self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl
in distro features')

          self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"')
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +1 -1
-        bitbake("core-image-sato")
+        bitbake("core-image-minimal")
          # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts

Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?

I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger image?

Quoted 5 lines

Cheers,

Richard

#4 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature

Quoted 45 lines · Leonardo Sandoval
Quoted 35 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 32 lines · On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600, [email protected]…

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected] om>

The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to
test
read-only feature.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linu

x.in
tel.com>
---
  meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----

  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +0 -0
index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
@@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):


      @testcase(1435)
      def test_read_only_image(self):
-        distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES') -        if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in distro_features):
-            self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl
in distro features') self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines

rootfs"')
-        bitbake("core-image-sato")
+        bitbake("core-image-minimal")

          # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts

Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do
want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?

Quoted 2 lines

I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger image?

The large image is more complex, it has more complex post-installs and more utilities using update alternatives. The areas read-only rootfs tends to break is in these areas as for example if certain postinstalls get deferred to "on device at first boot", read-only rootfs breaks.

Cheers,

Richard

#5 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature

In reply to Leonardo Sandoval
Quoted 8 lines · Leonardo Sandoval
Quoted 6 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 4 lines · On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600, [email protected]…

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +1 -1
-        bitbake("core-image-sato")
+        bitbake("core-image-minimal")
          # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?

I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger image?

The postinst of each component installed into the image must work properly in a read-only rootfs configuration. So the test is partly for image creation, partly for the components, and thus more comprehensive when using a larger image.

Signature · 6 lines
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
#6 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature

In reply to [email protected]
Quoted 3 lines · On 31 January 2017 at 22:50, <[email protected]> wrote:

The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to test read-only feature.

What Patrick and Richard said. In particular, it's things like the gdk-pixbuf and fontconfig postinsts which we need to ensure are not delayed, and these are not in minimal images.

Ross

author
#7 lore raw

PATCH 2/4 selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates

In reply to [email protected]

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

There is no need to clean m4 sstates, use force instead.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +1 -2
index 004b2dd..a83088f 100644
@@ -36,8 +36,7 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
         p = get_bb_var('SYSROOT_DESTDIR', 'ccache-native') + get_bb_var('bindir', 'ccache-native') + "/" + "ccache"
         self.assertTrue(os.path.isfile(p), msg = "No ccache found (%s)" % p)
         self.write_config('INHERIT += "ccache"')
-        bitbake("m4 -c cleansstate")
-        bitbake("m4 -c compile")
+        bitbake("m4 -c compile -f")
         self.addCleanup(bitbake, 'ccache-native -ccleansstate')
         res = runCmd("grep ccache %s" % (os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile")), ignore_status=True)
         self.assertEqual(0, res.status, msg="No match for ccache in m4 log.do_compile. For further details: %s" % os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile"))
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
#8 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates

Quoted 23 lines · On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600, [email protected]…

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

There is no need to clean m4 sstates, use force instead.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]

tel.com>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 3 +--

 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py +0 -0
index 004b2dd..a83088f 100644
@@ -36,8 +36,7 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):

         p = get_bb_var('SYSROOT_DESTDIR', 'ccache-native') + get_bb_var('bindir', 'ccache-native') + "/" + "ccache" self.assertTrue(os.path.isfile(p), msg = "No ccache found (%s)" % p)
         self.write_config('INHERIT += "ccache"')
-        bitbake("m4 -c cleansstate")
-        bitbake("m4 -c compile")

Quoted 8 lines

+        bitbake("m4 -c compile -f") self.addCleanup(bitbake, 'ccache-native -ccleansstate') res = runCmd("grep ccache %s" % (os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile")), ignore_status=True)
         self.assertEqual(0, res.status, msg="No match for ccache in m4 log.do_compile. For further details: %s" % os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile"))

If we force something like this we really need a cleanup in there to remove the taint too...

Cheers,

Richard

author
#9 lore raw

PATCH 3/4 selftest/bbtests: use write_config instead of local.conf file

In reply to [email protected]

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

Extra configuration data should be write using the write_config method instead of manually appending to the local.conf file

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py +1 -4
index c4e50cb..9dbac95 100644
@@ -229,10 +229,7 @@ INHERIT_remove = \"report-error\"
 
     @testcase(1119)
     def test_non_gplv3(self):
-        data = 'INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3"'
-        conf = os.path.join(self.builddir, 'conf/local.conf')
-        ftools.append_file(conf ,data)
-        self.addCleanup(ftools.remove_from_file, conf ,data)
+        self.write_config('INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3"')
         result = bitbake('readline', ignore_status=True)
         self.assertEqual(result.status, 0, "Bitbake failed, exit code %s, output %s" % (result.status, result.output))
         lic_dir = get_bb_var('LICENSE_DIRECTORY')
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
author
#10 lore raw

PATCH 4/4 selftest/archiver: invalidate stamps instead of removing TMPDIR

In reply to [email protected]

From: Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>

There is no need to remove the whole TMPDIR, instead just invalidate stamps and build again the targets.

Signed-off-by Leonardo Sandoval <[email protected]>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py +2 -2
index 97b6f5b..c8c4533 100644
@@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ class Archiver(oeSelfTest):
         features += 'COPYLEFT_PN_EXCLUDE = "%s"\n' % exclude_recipe
         self.write_config(features)
 
-        shutil.rmtree(get_bb_var('TMPDIR'))
-        bitbake("%s %s" % (include_recipe, exclude_recipe))
+        bitbake("-C fetch %s" % include_recipe)
+        bitbake("-C fetch %s" % exclude_recipe)
 
         src_path = os.path.join(get_bb_var('DEPLOY_DIR_SRC'), get_bb_var('TARGET_SYS'))
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4