Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes: > 04/06/2019 17:49, Michael Santana Francisco: >> On 6/4/19 4:59 AM, David Marchand wrote: >> > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste,
+1 here. >> >> We should still fix them. However I don't know if we should be running >> the perf test for every job and every patch on travis. It takes too >> long. The travis queue will be delayed too far behind for it to be of >> any use. >> >> OTOH we could have one job as part of the travis build dedicated to >> running tests (or just perf test). It's still time consuming but better >> than running the test on every travis job. For this to work we would >> need to decreased the timeout for the perf tests as the timeout for it >> and the travis are both 10 minutes > > +Cc c...@dpdk.org > > I don't think we should run the perf tests in basic CI like Travis. > We can run perf tests if the purpose is to compare the performance > with previous releases, as some other tests in the community lab. +1 - some of the perf tests aren't going to complete in any sort of reasonable time. While we could claim it's a separate problem, we should also not enable something that will make the travis runs so much longer. I do like the idea of running tests in the travis build, and I think it would make sense to have just a single job for it (or maybe one for clang and one for gcc? maybe even that is overkill). I would rather not do performance tests during the travis run, though. It doesn't really make sense. Travis isn't any kind of an 'optimized' environment, so I don't know what 'performance' should mean.
