From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x541.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::541]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hOXOg-0001bo-QJ for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 00:58:57 +0000 Received: by mail-pg1-x541.google.com with SMTP id 145so259409pgg.9 for ; Wed, 08 May 2019 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework References: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <54940124-50df-16ec-1a32-ad794ee05da7@gmail.com> <20190507080119.GB28121@kroah.com> <20190507172256.GB5900@mit.edu> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: <4d963cdc-1cbb-35a3-292c-552f865ed1f7@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 17:58:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190507172256.GB5900@mit.edu> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Theodore Ts'o , Greg KH , Brendan Higgins , keescook@google.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, Tim.Bird@sony.com, amir73il@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, jdike@addtoit.com, joel@jms.id.au, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, khilman@baylibre.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, logang@deltatee.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, pmladek@suse.com, richard@nod.at, rientjes@google.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, wfg@linux.intel.com Hi Ted, On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:01:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: Not very helpful to cut the text here, plus not explicitly indicating that text was cut (yes, I know the ">>>" will be a clue for the careful reader), losing the set up for my question. >>> My understanding is that the intent of KUnit is to avoid booting a kernel on >>> real hardware or in a virtual machine. That seems to be a matter of semantics >>> to me because isn't invoking a UML Linux just running the Linux kernel in >>> a different form of virtualization? >>> >>> So I do not understand why KUnit is an improvement over kselftest. >>> >>> It seems to me that KUnit is just another piece of infrastructure that I >>> am going to have to be familiar with as a kernel developer. More overhead, >>> more information to stuff into my tiny little brain. >>> >>> I would guess that some developers will focus on just one of the two test >>> environments (and some will focus on both), splitting the development >>> resources instead of pooling them on a common infrastructure. >>> >>> What am I missing? >> >> kselftest provides no in-kernel framework for testing kernel code >> specifically. That should be what kunit provides, an "easy" way to >> write in-kernel tests for things. >> >> Brendan, did I get it right? > > Yes, that's basically right. You don't *have* to use KUnit. It's If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs to contain a test for the code unless I want to convince the maintainer that somehow my case is special and I prefer to use kselftest instead of KUnittest. > supposed to be a simple way to run a large number of small tests that > for specific small components in a system. kselftest also supports running a subset of tests. That subset of tests can also be a large number of small tests. There is nothing inherent in KUnit vs kselftest in this regard, as far as I am aware. > For example, I currently use xfstests using KVM and GCE to test all of > ext4. These tests require using multiple 5 GB and 20GB virtual disks, > and it works by mounting ext4 file systems and exercising ext4 through > the system call interfaces, using userspace tools such as fsstress, > fsx, fio, etc. It requires time overhead to start the VM, create and > allocate virtual disks, etc. For example, to run a single 3 seconds > xfstest (generic/001), it requires full 10 seconds to run it via > kvm-xfstests. > > KUnit is something else; it's specifically intended to allow you to > create lightweight tests quickly and easily, and by reducing the > effort needed to write and run unit tests, hopefully we'll have a lot > more of them and thus improve kernel quality. The same is true of kselftest. You can create lightweight tests in kselftest. > As an example, I have a volunteer working on developing KUinit tests > for ext4. We're going to start by testing the ext4 extent status > tree. The source code is at fs/ext4/extent_status.c; it's > approximately 1800 LOC. The Kunit tests for the extent status tree > will exercise all of the corner cases for the various extent status > tree functions --- e.g., ext4_es_insert_delayed_block(), > ext4_es_remove_extent(), ext4_es_cache_extent(), etc. And it will do > this in isolation without our needing to create a test file system or > using a test block device. > > Next we'll test the ext4 block allocator, again in isolation. To test > the block allocator we will have to write "mock functions" which > simulate reading allocation bitmaps from disk. Again, this will allow > the test writer to explicitly construct corner cases and validate that > the block allocator works as expected without having to reverese > engineer file system data structures which will force a particular > code path to be executed. This would be a difference, but mock functions do not exist in KUnit. The KUnit test will call the real kernel function in the UML kernel. I think Brendan has indicated a desire to have mock functions in the future. Brendan, do I understand that correctly? -Frank > So this is why it's largely irrelevant to me that KUinit uses UML. In > fact, it's a feature. We're not testing device drivers, or the > scheduler, or anything else architecture-specific. UML is not about > virtualization. What it's about in this context is allowing us to > start running test code as quickly as possible. Booting KVM takes > about 3-4 seconds, and this includes initializing virtio_scsi and > other device drivers. If by using UML we can hold the amount of > unnecessary kernel subsystem initialization down to the absolute > minimum, and if it means that we can communicating to the test > framework via a userspace "printf" from UML/KUnit code, as opposed to > via a virtual serial port to KVM's virtual console, it all makes for > lighter weight testing. > > Why did I go looking for a volunteer to write KUnit tests for ext4? > Well, I have a plan to make some changes in restructing how ext4's > write path works, in order to support things like copy-on-write, a > more efficient delayed allocation system, etc. This will require > making changes to the extent status tree, and by having unit tests for > the extent status tree, we'll be able to detect any bugs that we might > accidentally introduce in the es tree far more quickly than if we > didn't have those tests available. Google has long found that having > these sorts of unit tests is a real win for developer velocity for any > non-trivial code module (or C++ class), even when you take into > account the time it takes to create the unit tests. > > - Ted> > P.S. Many thanks to Brendan for finding such a volunteer for me; the > person in question is a SRE from Switzerland who is interested in > getting involved with kernel testing, and this is going to be their > 20% project. :-) > > _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um