Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] Makerules: add 'make check-parallel' to run tests without serialization

On Sat, Jul 4, 2026 at 12:46 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/07/26 08:09, Sam James wrote:
> > Adhemerval Zanella <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> The default 'make check' serializes the timing-sensitive test runs: the
> >> threading (nptl, or htl on Hurd) and realtime (rt) subdirectories run
> >> with .NOTPARALLEL and are ordered after the rest of the test run, so they
> >> are not perturbed by competing machine load.
> >>
> >> Add a check-parallel (and xcheck-parallel) variant for when that is not
> >> wanted -- an idle machine, or a run where the extra throughput is worth
> >> the risk of flakiness in the timing-sensitive tests.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps link to
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/[email protected]/
>
> Ack.
>
> > for context in the commit message. I think ultimately we want to try do
> > something better for these, like adding some classifier for them as CPU
> > intensive or timing sensitive.
>
> Yeah, it is my backlog to check a way classify such tests with a special
> rule (like tests-timing or something like that) and run each of them
> serially.
>
> >
> > It also reminds me a bit of some of the xcheck discussion:
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5816153.DvuYhMxLoT@pinacolada/.
>
> For xcheck I think some tests could be rewritten to avoid being
> timing-sensitive, but some does require some kernel support that does
> require running with extra capabilities (like CAP_SYS_NICE for sccheduling
> priority).
>
> >
> >> A new serialize-tests flag (default yes, defined in Makeconfig) gates both
> >> the per-subdirectory .NOTPARALLEL and the top-level run-time ordering;
> >> check-parallel just runs the suite with serialize-tests=no, so every test
> >> program builds and runs at full concurrency in a single pass.
> >>
> >> 'make check' and its default behavior are unchanged.
> >
> > Can you make sure you document this on the wiki as well at
> > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Testing/Testsuite once in?
>
> I will do it.
>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Sam James <[email protected]>
>

This may have caused:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34351

-- 
H.J.