From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFD5C001DC for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229873AbjG0TEe (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:04:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46234 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231898AbjG0TEd (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:04:33 -0400 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78FB32113 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-173-48-115-64.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.115.64]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 36RJ4AXr025022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:04:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1690484652; bh=Tci4gZnTc+NqvOWjbW0+IR9pwCRzvvZRz9t38Ngz+wY=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GMJFAJRuWx1oOuo+YNL+3wxla+5T+qle0q8vH1ExajDCXyNkCA2WZbQB7TFDx0D5g k7EU56VHrnCNWWRec3ZcG4CMjs2lQrcT15r9cXbjaPUxh32wHK92VGWmAl9DNuGjZv k1sx1JkWVLTRNjtYf5EAXeIgzBINClYVYZMTSsxXp57J/zBkuqNfaDyS9UsFGyoJRu QBbItmzFukN7foJOyDimOgE9Nmh9lnn3ecToDdSaeurAjcSTRUzup8OENxlW5eFHc2 OeLIFD9awL2AyUBDFcYvj9daWh/y/P53puL49Xf6gZF9dLgOwH5x1eJI8NPLLlBiLv 15LFf0bvPln2A== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 8FB4315C04EF; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:04:10 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: zlang@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org, guan@eryu.me Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] check: add a -smoketest option Message-ID: <20230727190410.GI30264@mit.edu> References: <169033659987.3222210.11071346898413396128.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <169033660570.3222210.3010411210438664310.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <169033660570.3222210.3010411210438664310.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 06:56:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong > > Create a "-smoketest" parameter to check that will run generic > filesystem smoke testing for five minutes apiece. Since there are only > five smoke tests, this is effectively a 16min super-quick test. The code is setting SOAK_DURATION to 4 minutes, not 5 minutes. However, when I ran the moral equivalent: kvm-xfstests --soak-duration 4m --fail-loop-count 0 -c ext4/4k \ generic/475 generic/476 generic/521 generic/522 generic/642 It overall took 17 minutes to run, with just under a minute of test infrastructure overhead (in the check script and my wrapper scripts), with the actual test time as follows: ext4/4k: 5 tests, 975 seconds generic/475 Pass 242s generic/476 Pass 244s generic/521 Pass 241s generic/522 Pass 241s generic/642 Pass 7s Totals: 5 tests, 0 skipped, 0 failures, 0 errors, 975s The time which generic/642 ran was surprising so I took a closer look. It does claim to be in group "soak", and it even tries to canonicalize SOAK_DURATION (I'm not sure why, since the check script does this already). But generic/642 doesn't seem to use SOAK_DURATION. It does caculate a DURATION value, but it doesn't actually use SOAK_DURATION. So that sounds like a bug in the generic/642 test? There was also a bug xfstests's "make install" in that it doesn't actually install src/soak_duration.awk, but I'll send that a patch fixing that under separate cover. Darrick -- suppose changed the SOAK_DURATION down to 2 minutes? How much do you think that would materially affect the code coverage metrics, and the overall effectiveness of the smoke test? If we get generci/642 to honor SOAK_DURATION, using an overall 2 minute soak for each test would translate to the smoke test taking about 13 minutes, which would be great from a drive-by patch submitter perspective. - Ted > With gcov enabled, running these tests yields about ~75% coverage for > iomap and ~60% for xfs; or ~50% for ext4 and ~75% for ext4; and ~45% for > btrfs. Coverage was about ~65% for the pagecache.