Use of LAVA priorities

[broonie]

One feature that's not been carried over from KernelCI 1.0 is the use of LAVA job priorities to control which order jobs are executed in, allowing us to prioritise results for more time sensitive trees (eg, -next or stable-rc) and tests (eg, boot tests). It would be good if this could be carried over.

[padovan]

That comes with challenges as eg Collabora lab adds higher priority to certain jobs (eg Mesa CI pre merge). So using LAVA priorities might not work here. (@pawiecz can say more)

Maybe we need the concept of priority in Maestro and schedule accordingly.

[broonie]

That also applies to my lab, all the KernelCI jobs should be lower priority than anything I send myself.

The KernelCI 1.0 implementation made the range of priorities that KernelCI would submit a per lab configuration option, when generating jobs the priority used in the actual submission would be generated by scaling the priority within the lab configured range. For example if KernelCI generates a priority of 0.5 on a 0..1 scale and the lab allows LAVA priorities 0..40 then the job would go in with a priority of 20.

[nuclearcat]

Yes, and i am already slightly using that, kci-dev submitted jobs have slightly higher priority (within specified bounds), so probably implementing priority boost/de-boost for kernels and tests might be doable.

[bhcopeland]

#1407
kernelci/kernelci-core#3038

We can probably close this now after Broonie has tested!

Ben