From: Zorro Lang <zlang@kernel.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] check: add new option "--loop <n>" which runs each test multiple times
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 03:50:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afzmt7SFA4jWhi6U@zlang-mailbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260415213248.1795275-1-tytso@mit.edu>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 05:32:48PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Teach the check script a new option --loop, which re-run each test
> multiple times. This works very similarly to to -L, which will retry
> a particular test after it first fails, except that the test is rerun
> unconditionally.
>
> This differs from the "-i <n>" option, which iterates each set of
> tests <n> times instead of each test. The -i option is problematic in
> two ways. First, doesn't save the test artifacts from each test run.
> This is unfortunate because when the developer is trying to debug a
> flaky test failure, running "check -i 100" will run a test 100 times,
> but if only the 42nd test fails, the NNN.out.bad file for that failing
> test run is not preserved. The second difference between --loop and
> -i is the result.xml file is rewritten after each test set, so we do
> not have the cumulative statistics of the 100 test runs in the junit
> XML file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> ---
Hi Ted,
>
> Note: This commit adds a new command-line option instead of changing the
> behavior of -i because it's possible that *someone* actually likes the
> current behavior of the -i option, and changing how -i works might
> break their test runner infrastructure.
>
> Speaking personally, I find the current -i option completely useless
> for the needs of xfstests-bld, and I would be happy to just change how
> the -i option works. This would also require changing support for -I,
> but I was planning on adding an --loop-while-successful option
> eventually, since it would be faster for bisection (although I
> normally don't care about the junit XML file for NNN.out.bad files
> when bisecting, so I find -I much less objectionable than -i).
>
> check | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/check b/check
> index cd7a79347..923d81a28 100755
> --- a/check
> +++ b/check
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ DUMP_OUTPUT=false
> iterations=1
> istop=false
> loop_on_fail=0
> +loop_always=0
> +loop_count=0
> exclude_tests=()
>
> # This is a global variable used to pass test failure text to reporting gunk
> @@ -85,6 +87,7 @@ check options
> -s section run only specified section from config file
> -S section exclude the specified section from the config file
> -L <n> loop tests <n> times following a failure, measuring aggregate pass/fail metrics
> + --loop=<n> loop tests <n> times, measuring aggregate pass/fail metrics
>
> testlist options
> -g group[,group...] include tests from these groups
> @@ -339,6 +342,12 @@ while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do
> --extra-space=*) export SCRATCH_DEV_EMPTY_SPACE=${r#*=} ;;
> -L) [[ $2 =~ ^[0-9]+$ ]] || usage
> loop_on_fail=$2; shift
> + loop_count=$loop_on_fail
> + ;;
> + --loop=*) loop_always=${1#*=}
"${1#*=}", we're doing it the hard way... I really hope to rewrite the whole
arguments processing part with getopt or any other good way.
> + [[ $loop_always =~ ^[0-9]+$ ]] || usage
> + loop_count=$(( loop_always - 1))
OK, if --loop=0, loop_count=-1, then the test will be run once. So looks like
--loop=<n> is "loop tests an *additional* <n> times", right?
> + set +vx
^^^^^^^
It seems a debug ghost is still haunting the code :)
Others look good to me.
Thanks,
Zorro
> ;;
>
> -*) usage ;;
> @@ -604,7 +613,7 @@ _expunge_test()
> }
>
> # retain files which would be overwritten in subsequent reruns of the same test
> -_stash_fail_loop_files() {
> +_stash_loop_files() {
> local seq_prefix="${REPORT_DIR}/${1}"
> local cp_suffix="$2"
>
> @@ -629,9 +638,9 @@ _stash_test_status() {
>
> if ((${#loop_status[*]} > 0)); then
> # continuing or completing rerun-on-failure loop
> - _stash_fail_loop_files "$test_seq" ".rerun${#loop_status[*]}"
> + _stash_loop_files "$test_seq" ".rerun${#loop_status[*]}"
> loop_status+=("$test_status")
> - if ((${#loop_status[*]} > loop_on_fail)); then
> + if ((${#loop_status[*]} > loop_count)); then
> printf "%s aggregate results across %d runs: " \
> "$test_seq" "${#loop_status[*]}"
> awk "BEGIN {
> @@ -651,9 +660,9 @@ _stash_test_status() {
>
> case "$test_status" in
> fail)
> - if ((loop_on_fail > 0)); then
> + if ((loop_on_fail > 0 || loop_always > 0 )); then
> # initial failure, start rerun-on-failure loop
> - _stash_fail_loop_files "$test_seq" ".rerun0"
> + _stash_loop_files "$test_seq" ".rerun0"
> loop_status+=("$test_status")
> fi
> bad+=("$test_seq")
> @@ -661,7 +670,14 @@ _stash_test_status() {
> list|notrun)
> notrun+=("$test_seq")
> ;;
> - pass|expunge)
> + pass)
> + if (( loop_always > 0 )); then
> + # start rerun loop
> + _stash_loop_files "$test_seq" ".rerun0"
> + loop_status+=("$test_status")
> + fi
> + ;;
> + expunge)
> ;;
> *)
> echo "Unexpected test $test_seq status: $test_status"
> --
> 2.51.0
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-07 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-15 21:32 [PATCH RFC] check: add new option "--loop <n>" which runs each test multiple times Theodore Ts'o
2026-05-05 13:34 ` Theodore Tso
2026-05-07 20:20 ` Zorro Lang
2026-05-07 19:50 ` Zorro Lang [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=afzmt7SFA4jWhi6U@zlang-mailbox \
--to=zlang@kernel.org \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox