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.
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
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs Filesystems
[email protected] +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
