[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 02/32] kunit: Warn if tests are slow

[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 02/32] kunit: Warn if tests are slow

[Sasha Levin]

From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

[ Upstream commit f8f2847f739dc899d0e563eac01299dadefa64ff ]

Kunit recently gained support to setup attributes, the first one being
the speed of a given test, then allowing to filter out slow tests.

A slow test is defined in the documentation as taking more than one
second. There's an another speed attribute called "super slow" but whose
definition is less clear.

Add support to the test runner to check the test execution time, and
report tests that should be marked as slow but aren't.

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 lib/kunit/test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 421f139814123..e451cfe6143ec 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -372,6 +372,36 @@ void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_init_test);
 
+/* Only warn when a test takes more than twice the threshold */
+#define KUNIT_SPEED_WARNING_MULTIPLIER	2
+
+/* Slow tests are defined as taking more than 1s */
+#define KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW_THRESHOLD_S	1
+
+#define KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW_WARNING_THRESHOLD_S	\
+	(KUNIT_SPEED_WARNING_MULTIPLIER * KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW_THRESHOLD_S)
+
+#define s_to_timespec64(s) ns_to_timespec64((s) * NSEC_PER_SEC)
+
+static void kunit_run_case_check_speed(struct kunit *test,
+				       struct kunit_case *test_case,
+				       struct timespec64 duration)
+{
+	struct timespec64 slow_thr =
+		s_to_timespec64(KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW_WARNING_THRESHOLD_S);
+	enum kunit_speed speed = test_case->attr.speed;
+
+	if (timespec64_compare(&duration, &slow_thr) < 0)
+		return;
+
+	if (speed == KUNIT_SPEED_VERY_SLOW || speed == KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW)
+		return;
+
+	kunit_warn(test,
+		   "Test should be marked slow (runtime: %lld.%09lds)",
+		   duration.tv_sec, duration.tv_nsec);
+}
+
 /*
  * Initializes and runs test case. Does not clean up or do post validations.
  */
@@ -379,6 +409,8 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
 				    struct kunit_suite *suite,
 				    struct kunit_case *test_case)
 {
+	struct timespec64 start, end;
+
 	if (suite->init) {
 		int ret;
 
@@ -390,7 +422,13 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
 		}
 	}
 
+	ktime_get_ts64(&start);
+
 	test_case->run_case(test);
+
+	ktime_get_ts64(&end);
+
+	kunit_run_case_check_speed(test, test_case, timespec64_sub(end, start));
 }
 
 static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test)
-- 
2.42.0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 03/32] kunit: Reset suite counter right before running tests

[Sasha Levin]

From: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>

[ Upstream commit 2e3c94aed51eabbe9c1c0ee515371ea5441c2fa7 ]

Today we reset the suite counter as part of the suite cleanup,
called from the module exit callback, but it might not work that
well as one can try to collect results without unloading a previous
test (either unintentionally or due to dependencies).

For easy reproduction try to load the kunit-test.ko and then
collect and parse results from the kunit-example-test.ko load.
Parser will complain about mismatch of expected test number:

[ ] KTAP version 1
[ ] 1..1
[ ]     # example: initializing suite
[ ]     KTAP version 1
[ ]     # Subtest: example
..
[ ] # example: pass:5 fail:0 skip:4 total:9
[ ] # Totals: pass:6 fail:0 skip:6 total:12
[ ] ok 7 example

[ ] [ERROR] Test: example: Expected test number 1 but found 7
[ ] ===================== [PASSED] example =====================
[ ] ============================================================
[ ] Testing complete. Ran 12 tests: passed: 6, skipped: 6, errors: 1

Since we are now printing suite test plan on every module load,
right before running suite tests, we should make sure that suite
counter will also start from 1. Easiest solution seems to be move
counter reset to the __kunit_test_suites_init() function.

Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 lib/kunit/test.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index e451cfe6143ec..7452d1a2acd98 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -740,6 +740,8 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
 		return 0;
 	}
 
+	kunit_suite_counter = 1;
+
 	static_branch_inc(&kunit_running);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
@@ -766,8 +768,6 @@ void __kunit_test_suites_exit(struct kunit_suite **suites, int num_suites)
 
 	for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++)
 		kunit_exit_suite(suites[i]);
-
-	kunit_suite_counter = 1;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_test_suites_exit);
 
-- 
2.42.0