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.
next prev parent 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