Skip to content
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

[FEATURE] Support reboot cycles/stress-tests #1038

Open
plbossart opened this issue May 18, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

[FEATURE] Support reboot cycles/stress-tests #1038

plbossart opened this issue May 18, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
P2 Critical bugs or normal features type:test coverage gap This requires a new test case, not just fixing one

Comments

@plbossart
Copy link
Member

While debugging on MTL_RVP_HDA, I encountered multiple cases of stuck reboots, which can only be solved with a power-cycle.
It's my understanding that we do not test reboot on our CI and daily test devices, so we don't know what we don't know.

I am not sure if this can be implemented with sof-test 'run-all-test', this may require an external device to send the reboot commands and check what the state is. Or this may be a script in sof-test that executes on a host device, with commands sent over ssh to the DUT?

Comments and ideas welcome @keqiaozhang @marc-hb @fredoh9 @ranj063

@marc-hb
Copy link
Collaborator

marc-hb commented May 19, 2023

Testing a device that does up and down is not easy, it requires relatively smart outside control and sof-test is not that because sof-test runs on the device.

In fact we already had some discussions about this in internal issue 272. They were focused on suspend/resume which is easier but not 100% reliable either. So I think the next step is to extract from 272 information and pointers relevant to this.

EDIT, not sure what this check-reboot.sh does:
36dac39

@plbossart
Copy link
Member Author

It's not easy, that's a given. But I am really worried about the cost of doing nothing. probably time to think about the scripts and whether the premise that they all run locally is correct. we could have parts of sof-test that are dedicated to remote control, instead of having this in some random CI hidden repo.

@marc-hb marc-hb added P2 Critical bugs or normal features type:test coverage gap This requires a new test case, not just fixing one labels Jun 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P2 Critical bugs or normal features type:test coverage gap This requires a new test case, not just fixing one
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants