Re: [PATCH 1/3] generic/476: reclassify this test as a long running soak stress test

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

 



On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 11:17:25AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 04:24:56PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:13:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This test is a long(ish) running stress test, so add it to those groups.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/generic/476 |    2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tests/generic/476 b/tests/generic/476
> > > index 212373d17c..edb0be7b50 100755
> > > --- a/tests/generic/476
> > > +++ b/tests/generic/476
> > > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
> > >  # bugs in the write path.
> > >  #
> > >  . ./common/preamble
> > > -_begin_fstest auto rw
> > > +_begin_fstest auto rw soak long_rw stress
> > 
> > Sorry for late reviewing. I thought a bit more about this change. I think
> > the "soak", "long_rw" and "stress" tags are a bit overlap. If the "stress"
> > group means "fsstress", then I think the fsstress test can be in soak
> > group too, and currently the test cases in "soak" group are same with the
> > "long_rw" group [1].
> 
> Hm.  Given the current definitions of each group:
> 
> long_rw                 long-soak read write IO path exercisers
> rw                      read/write IO tests
> soak                    long running soak tests of any kind
> stress                  fsstress filesystem exerciser
> 
> I think these all can apply to generic/476 -- it's definitely a
> read-write IO test; it's definitely one that does RW for a long time;
> and it uses fsstress.
> 
> > So I think we can give the "soak" tag to more test cases with random I/Os
> > (fsstress or fsx or others). And rename "long_rw" to "long_soak" for those
> > soak group cases which need long soaking time. Then we have two group tags
> > for random loading/stress test cases, the testers can (decide to) run these
> > random load test cases seperately with more time or loop count.
> 
> I have a counterproposal -- what do you think about redefining 'soak' to
> mean "all tests where SOAK_DURATION can be used to control the test
> runtime directly"?  This shouldn't break anyone's scripts, since the
> only members of 'soak' are the ones that get modified by this patchset.

Sure, we can check if more cases can use the SOAK_DURATION later, then we add
them to soak group.

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> --D
> 
> > Anyway, above things can be done in another patchset, I just speak out to
> > get more talking:) For this patch:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> > 
> > [1]
> > # ./check -n -g soak
> > SECTION       -- simpledev
> > FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
> > PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64
> > MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m rmapbt=1 /dev/sda3
> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/scratch
> > 
> > generic/521
> > generic/522
> > generic/642
> > 
> > # ./check -n -g long_rw
> > SECTION       -- simpledev
> > FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
> > PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64
> > MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m rmapbt=1 /dev/sda3
> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/scratch
> > 
> > generic/521
> > generic/522
> > generic/642
> > 
> > 
> > >  
> > >  # Override the default cleanup function.
> > >  _cleanup()
> > > 
> > 
> 




[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux