Re: [LSF/MM/BPF ATTEND][LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] : blktests: status, expansion plan for the storage stack test framework

From: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
To: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
Cc: "Chaitanya Kulkarni" <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>,
	"lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org >> linux-fsdevel"
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"Bart Van Assche" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	"josef@toxicpanda.com" <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	"Amir Goldstein" <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	"Javier González" <javier@javigon.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
	"Keith Busch" <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	"Hannes Reinecke" <hare@suse.de>,
	"Damien Le Moal" <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	"Johannes Thumshirn" <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,
	"jack@suse.com" <jack@suse.com>, "Ming Lei" <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
	"Sagi Grimberg" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF ATTEND][LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] : blktests: status, expansion plan for the storage stack test framework
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:32:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23fhu43orn5yyi6jytsyez3f3d7liocp4cat5gfswtan33m3au@iyxhcwee6wvk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jfydrbb277d7ad2ypu5dottiqh4rtzm5ipf72wcjo34mmpvnl7@mjlqomulsq3q>

On Jan 23, 2024 / 16:07, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:50:50AM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 06:30:46AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> > > For storage track, I 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?
> > > 4. DM/MD Testcases.
> > > 5. Potentially adding VM support in the blktests.
> > 
> > I am interested in such a session.

Thanks Chaitanya, I'm interested in them too. I can share my view on the current
status of blktests.

> 
> One discussion point I'd like to add is
> 
>   - running blktest against real hardare/target

Agreed. I guess this maybe meant for real RDMA hardware, which was discussed in
a couple of GitHub pull requests [1][2].

  [1] https://github.com/osandov/blktests/pull/86
  [2] https://github.com/osandov/blktests/pull/127

Another topic I suggest is,

 - Automated blktests runs and reports

Recently I learned that CKI project runs blktests regularly against Linus master
branch and linux-block for-next branch, then makes the run results visible on
the net [3][4]. Now I'm trying to understand detailed conditions of the test
runs. If we can discuss and clarify what kind of run conditions will help
storage kernel developers, it will be a good input to CKI project, hopefully.

  [3] https://datawarehouse.cki-project.org/kcidb/tests?tree_filter=mainline.kernel.org&kernel_version_filter=&arch_filter=x86_64&test_filter=blktests&host_filter=&testresult_filter=
  [4] https://datawarehouse.cki-project.org/kcidb/tests?tree_filter=block&kernel_version_filter=&arch_filter=x86_64&test_filter=blktests&host_filter=&testresult_filter=