On 2019/02/06 19:32, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 06/02/2019 06:21, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Since discussion of the storage stack and device driver at the LSFMM 2017 >> (https://lwn.net/Articles/717699/), Omar Sandoval introduced a new framework >> "blktests" dedicated for Linux Kernel Block layer testing. >> (https://lwn.net/Articles/722785/, https://github.com/osandov/blktests). >> >> As Linux Kernel Block layer is central to the various file systems and underlying >> low-level device drivers it is important to have a centralized testing framework and >> make sure it grows with the latest block layer changed which are being added based >> on the different device features from different device types >> (e.g. NVMe devices with Zoned Namespace support). >> >> Since then blktests has grown and became go-to framework where we have integrated >> different stand-alone test suites like SRP-tests, NVMFTESTS, NVMe Multipath tests, >> zone block device tests, into one central framework, which has made an overall block layer >> testing and development much easier than having to configure and execute different >> test cases for each kernel release for different subsystems such as FS, NVMe, >> Zone Block devices, etc). >> >> Here is the list of the existing test categories:- >> >> ├── block 28 Tests >> ├── loop 07 Tests >> ├── meta 12 Tests >> ├── nbd 02 Tests >> ├── nvme 28 Tests >> ├── nvmeof-mp 12 Tests >> ├── scsi 06 Tests >> ├── srp 13 Tests >> └── zbd 05 Tests >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> 9 Categories ~110 Tests >> >> This project has gathered much attention and storage stack community is actively >> participating and adding new test cases with different categories to the framework. >> >> For storage track, we would like to propose a session dedicated to blktests. It is a great >> opportunity for the storage developers to gather and have a discussion about:- >> >> 1. Current status of the blktests framework. >> 2. Any new/missing features that we want to add in the blktests. >> 3. Any new kernel features that could be used to make testing easier? >> E.g. Implementing new features in the null_blk.c in order to have device >> independent complete test coverage. (e.g. adding discard command for null_blk or any >> other specific REQ_OP). Discussion about having any new tracepoint events in the block layer. >> 4. Any new test cases/categories which are lacking in the blktests framework. > > One thing I'd love to see is more hardware/driver specific tests. I'm > sure Broadcom, Marvell, Huawei and all the others out there do have test > suites for their HBA drivers but not a single one of these tests is > publicly available. > > We're also lacking tests for things like ioprio, persistent reservation, > bcache and so on. +1 for ioprio discussion. I mentioned my interest in discussing this in my invite request. Having it as a topic would be great. Since we are in the middle of blktest improvements for zoned devices, I can try to put together a proposal as a discussion base. > > Adding support for collecting gcov information after running a test case > would also be awesome (this is missing in xfstests as well). > > So I think a session on blktests can help us get the gap closed. > > Byte, > Johannes > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
