Re: [RFC: kdevops] Standardizing on failure rate nomenclature for expunges

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 05:06:07PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:44:19PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 03:58:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 07:24:50PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > > > Yes, we talked about this, but if I don't rememeber wrong, I recommended each
> > > > downstream testers maintain their own "testing data/config", likes exclude
> > > > list, failed ratio, known failures etc. I think they're not suitable to be
> > > > fixed in the mainline fstests.
> > > 
> > > This assumes a certain level of expertise, which is a barrier to entry.
> > > 
> > > For someone who wants to check "Did my patch to filesystem Y that I have
> > > never touched before break anything?", having non-deterministic tests
> > > run by default is bad.
> > > 
> > > As an example, run xfstests against jfs.  Hundreds of failures, including
> > > some very scary-looking assertion failures from the page allocator.
> > > They're (mostly) harmless in fact, just being a memory leak, but it
> > > makes xfstests useless for this scenario.
> > > 
> > > Even for well-maintained filesystems like xfs which is regularly tested,
> > > I expect generic/270 and a few others to fail.  They just do, and they're
> > > not an indication that *I* broke anything.
> > > 
> > > By all means, we want to keep tests around which have failures, but
> > > they need to be restricted to people who have a level of expertise and
> > > interest in fixing long-standing problems, not people who are looking
> > > for regressions.
> > 
> > It's hard to make sure if a failure is a regression, if someone only run
> > the test once. The testers need some experience, at least need some
> > history test data.
> > 
> > If a tester find a case has 10% chance fail on his system, to make sure
> > it's a regression or not, if he doesn't have history test data, at least
> > he need to do the same test more times on old kernel version with his
> > system. If it never fail on old kernel version, but can fail on new kernel.
> > Then we suspect it's a regression.
> > 
> > Even if the tester isn't an expert of the fs he's testing, he can report
> > this issue to that fs experts, to get more checking. For downstream kernel,
> > he has to report to the maintainers of downstream, or check by himself.
> > If a case pass on upstream, but fail on downstream, it might mean there's
> > a patchset on upstream can be backported.
> > 
> > So, anyway, the testers need their own "experience" (include testing history
> > data, known issue, etc) to judge if a failure is a suspected regression, or
> > a known issue of downstream which hasn't been fixed (by backport).
> > 
> > That's my personal perspective :)
> 
> Right, but that's the personal perspective of an expert tester.  I don't
> particularly want to build that expertise myself; I want to write patches
> which touch dozens of filesystems, and I want to be able to smoke-test
> those patches.  Maybe xfstests or kdevops doesn't want to solve that

I think it's hard to judge which cases are smoke-test cases commonly, especially
you hope they should all pass if no real bugs. If for "all filesystems", I have to
recomment some simple cases of fsx and fsstress only... Even if we can add
a group name as 'smoke', and mark all stable and simple enough test cases
as 'smoke', but I still can't be sure './check -g smoke' will test pass for
your all filesystems testing with random system environment :)

Thanks,
Zorro

> problem, but that would seem like a waste of other peoples time.
> 




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux