The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
---
 tests/nvme/032 | 4 ++--
 tests/nvme/040 | 9 +++++++--
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/nvme/032 b/tests/nvme/032
index 017d4a339971..93f53ac22a0b 100755
--- a/tests/nvme/032
+++ b/tests/nvme/032
@@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ test_device() {
 	sysfs="/sys/bus/pci/devices/${pdev}"
 
 	# start fio job
-	_run_fio_rand_io --filename="$TEST_DEV" --size=1g \
-		--group_reporting  &> /dev/null &
+	_run_fio_rand_io --filename="$TEST_DEV" \
+		--group_reporting --time_based --runtime=1d &> /dev/null &
 
 	sleep 5
 
diff --git a/tests/nvme/040 b/tests/nvme/040
index 04bd726cd309..10f924082f34 100755
--- a/tests/nvme/040
+++ b/tests/nvme/040
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ test() {
 	local port
 	local loop_dev
 	local nvmedev
+	local fio_pid
 
 	echo "Running ${TEST_NAME}"
 
@@ -37,8 +38,10 @@ test() {
 
 	# start fio job
 	echo "starting background fio"
-	_run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \
-		--group_reporting --ramp_time=5  &> /dev/null &
+	_run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" \
+		--group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \
+		--time_based --runtime=1d &> /dev/null &
+	fio_pid=$!
 	sleep 5
 
 	# do reset/remove operation
@@ -48,6 +51,8 @@ test() {
 	echo "deleting controller"
 	_nvme_delete_ctrl "${nvmedev}"
 
+	{ kill "${fio_pid}"; wait; } &> /dev/null
+
 	_remove_nvmet_subsystem_from_port "${port}" "${subsys}"
 	_remove_nvmet_subsystem "${subsys}"
 	_remove_nvmet_port "${port}"
-- 
2.40.0

On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
> Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>

Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?

-ck

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:40:52AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
> > Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
> 
> Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?

The expectation of the test here is that there is a background job running.
Depending on the job size is an indirect way to express run at least for x
seconds. This gives a variable runtime as it depends the how fast fio jobs gets
executed. Explicitly telling the runtime is my opinion more robust and documents
the indention better.

On 5/18/23 00:52, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:40:52AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>> The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
>>> Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
>> Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?
> The expectation of the test here is that there is a background job running.
> Depending on the job size is an indirect way to express run at least for x
> seconds. This gives a variable runtime as it depends the how fast fio jobs gets
> executed. Explicitly telling the runtime is my opinion more robust and documents
> the indention better.

agree, it is better to kill on rely on the variable while test is 
running ...

Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>

-ck