On 11/12/2023 14:07, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 11:14:03AM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >> On a related topic, it was once mentioned that since stable >> releases occur once a week and they are used as the basis for >> many distros and products, it would make sense to have >> long-running tests after the release has been declared. So we >> could have say, 48h of testing with extended coverage from LTP, >> fstests, benchmarks etc. That would be a reply to the email with >> the release tag, not the patch review. > > What tests take longer than 48 hours? Well, I'm not sure what you're actually asking here. Strictly speaking, some benchmarks and fuzzing can run for longer than 48h. What I meant is that testing is always open-ended, we could run tests literally forever on every kernel revision if we wanted to. For maintainer trees, it's really useful to have a short feedback loop and get useful results within say, 1h. For linux-next and mainline, maybe more testing can be done and results could take up to 4h to arrive. Then for stable releases (not stable-rc), as they happen basically once a week and are adopted as a base revision by a large group of users, it would make sense to have a bigger "testing budget" and allow up to maybe 48h of testing efforts. As to how to make best use of this time, there are various ways to look at it. I would suggest to first run the tests that aren't usually run such as some less common fstests combinations as well as some LTP and kselftests suites that take more than 30 min to complete. Also, if there are any reproducers for the fixes that have been applied to the stable branch then they could be run as true regression testing to confirm these issues don't come back. Then some additional benchmarks and tests that are known to "fail" occasionally could also be run to gather more stats. This could potentially show trends in case of say, performance deviation over several months on LTS with finer granularity. >> I've mentioned before the concept of finding "2nd derivatives" in >> the rest results, basically the first delta gives you all the >> regressions and then you do a delta of the regressions to find >> the new ones. Maintainer trees would be typically comparing >> against mainline or say, the -rc2 tag where they based their >> branch. In the case of stable, it would be between the stable-rc >> branch being tested and the base stable branch with the last >> tagged release. > > Yes, that is going to be required for this to be useful. OK thanks for confirming. >> One last thing, I see there's a change in KernelCI now to >> actually stop sending the current (suboptimal) automated reports >> to the stable mailing list: >> >> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-jenkins/pull/136 >> >> Is this actually what people here want? > > If these reports are currently for me, I'm just deleting them as they > provide no value anymore. So yes, let's stop this until we can get > something that actually works for us please. Right, I wasn't sure if anyone else was interested in them. It sounds like Sasha doesn't really need them either, although he wrote on IRC that he wouldn't disable them until something better was in place. I would suggest sending at least an email to the stable list to propose to stop these emails with a particular date and ideally some kind of plan about when some new emails would be available to replace them. But if really nobody else than you needs the current emails, then effectively nobody needs them and we can stop now of course. Cheers, Guillaume
