-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 196
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
USHIFT-2990: Early warning low latency job #3721
USHIFT-2990: Early warning low latency job #3721
Conversation
@pmtk: This pull request references USHIFT-2990 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.17.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
Used by openshift/release#55035 |
/retest |
/retest-required |
677e00d
to
347eeac
Compare
scripts/ci-footprint-and-performance/setup/001-configure-wp-lowlat.sh
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
set -xeuo pipefail | ||
|
||
retries=15 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason for 7.5m wait? Let's make it 10m at least?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Idk, I just copied it from somewhere else :) Changed
TEST_DURATION=$(( 2 * 60 )) | ||
POD=hwlatdetect | ||
|
||
sudo tee /tmp/hwlatdetect.yaml << EOF |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we add a description on what we're running in the pod?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, should we use mktemp for the file in /tmp?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added desc, but didn't use mktemp - it's annoying for manually iterating on the yaml
|
||
sudo subscription-manager repos --enable rhel-9-for-x86_64-rt-rpms | ||
sudo dnf install kernel-rt realtime-setup realtime-tests -y | ||
sudo grubby --set-default="$(ls /boot/vmlinuz*rt)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Kernel files tend to accumulate. I understand that we're installing kernel-rt
at this spot, but can we still make the code more robust?
Basically, we should
- rpm -q kernel-rt | sort | tail -1
- Use the value in grubby command
# shellcheck source=scripts/ci-footprint-and-performance/tests/functions.sh | ||
source "${SCRIPTDIR}/functions.sh" | ||
|
||
TEST_DURATION=$(( 2 * 60 )) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't 2m too short? I would run at least 5m each, possibly even more time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't think so, default value is 10s and in RHEL docs I've seen 60 seconds. This is just sanity for additional results if we see something weird in oslat. Oslat is the key test here.
/hold Need to retest with CI job |
/unhold |
bf7d6f5
to
5d712aa
Compare
5d712aa
to
01ed839
Compare
/hold |
/unhold |
/lgtm |
@pmtk: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ggiguash, pmtk The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
No description provided.