Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	 netdev@vger.kernel.org,  davem@davemloft.net,
	 edumazet@google.com,  ncardwell@google.com,  shuah@kernel.org,
	 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,  fw@strlen.de,
	 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
	 "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@kernel.org>,
	 martineau@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests/net: integrate packetdrill with ksft
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:20:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <66d1e32558532_3c08a22949e@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240828140035.4554142f@kernel.org>

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:33:33 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > That could work.
> > 
> > Is reporting one KTAP and exitcode per directory vs per packetdrill
> > invocation good/bad/neither?
> 
> To me "neither", hopefully and unhelpfully I won't tell you anything
> that's not common sense :) The balance is between:
> 
>  - having test cases which don't take too long (assuming debug kernel):
>      <15min is good, 
>      >1h I will start complaining,
>      >1h30m is bad because we can't retry and still make the 3h
>             deadline that NIPA has,
>      >3h the test can't run in NIPA at all.
> 
> vs
> 
>  - flip side is having so many cases it's hard to keep track and render
>    in the UI. JSON is relatively slow to process. If you have 150 cases,
>    that's 300 per branch (debug and non-debug kernels), times 8
>    branches a day => 2.4k results / day
>    I think that's still fine-ish, but on the larger side for sure. For
>    reference net and forwarding have ~100 tests each. FWIW we do have
>    the ability to collect and display nested KTAP so the information is
>    not lost (but it makes queries slower so we don't fetch it by default).
> 
> > Three other issues if this is calling packetdrill directly is
> > - passing the non-trivial IP specific flags
> > - running twice, for IPv4 and IPv6
> > - chdir into the directory of the pkt file
> > 
> > That can be addressed by instead calling a small wrapper shell script.
> > 
> > That would do the test_func_builder part of packetdrill_ksft.py.
> > But without the need to handle netns, popen/cmd, etc, and thus the
> > ksft dependencies.
> 
> Right!

Implemented this, but hit a snag

Kselftest install does not preserve directories.

So all .pkt files are copied into net/packetdrill root. This is messy.
More fundamentally it breaks the includes in the files (e..g, `source
../common/defaults.sh`).

The output of having each test separate is also quite unreadable.

An alternative is to add each subdirectory as a separate TARGET.
But that seems similarly impractical. And does nothing to group
KTAP output.

In practice, most directories have a handful of .pkt scripts, and
each script is fast, so serialization is not a huge issue.

I found tools/testing/selftests/net/kselftest/ktap_helpers.sh,
which has helpful KTAP boilerplate for shell tests, including
KSFT exit codes. Am using that instead of python, to reduce the
external dependencies.

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-30 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-27 19:32 [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests/net: integrate packetdrill with ksft Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-28  0:39 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-28 13:58   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-28  8:20 ` Paolo Abeni
2024-08-28 14:03   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-28 16:01     ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-28 19:33       ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-28 21:00         ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-30 15:20           ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2024-08-30 17:33             ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-30 18:47               ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-30 21:44                 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-30 21:52                   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-01 21:15                     ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-02 16:46                       ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-09-02 16:56                         ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-09-02 20:50                           ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-05  3:27                   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-30 21:46                 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-28 16:26     ` Matthieu Baerts
2024-08-28 15:01 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2024-08-28 15:36   ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-28 15:43   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-08-28 17:20     ` Stanislav Fomichev
2024-08-28 18:23       ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-28 18:36         ` Stanislav Fomichev
2024-08-28 18:26 ` Mina Almasry
2024-08-28 18:39   ` Jakub Kicinski

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=66d1e32558532_3c08a22949e@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch \
    --to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martineau@kernel.org \
    --cc=matttbe@kernel.org \
    --cc=ncardwell@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=willemb@google.com \
    /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