| Message ID | 98cb4e5323c2059506e93cb39c32ba471031e487.1661007339.git.sander@svanheule.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpumask: KUnit test suite fixes and improvements | expand |
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test. This > should help with finding out why a certain test fails. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@mail.gmail.com/ > Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > --- > lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 > --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ > static cpumask_t mask_empty; > static cpumask_t mask_all; > > +#define STR_MASK(m) #m > +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ > + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits, cpumask_bits(mask)) > + > static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) > { > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); > @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit *test) > /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */ > cpu_hotplug_disable(); > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask); > + > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); > > @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) > cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); > cpumask_setall(&mask_all); > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask); > + It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? > return 0; > } > > -- > 2.37.2
On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > > For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test. This > > should help with finding out why a certain test fails. > > > > Link: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > --- > > lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 > > --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ > > static cpumask_t mask_empty; > > static cpumask_t mask_all; > > > > +#define STR_MASK(m) #m > > +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ > > + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits, > > cpumask_bits(mask)) > > + > > static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) > > { > > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); > > @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit > > *test) > > /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */ > > cpu_hotplug_disable(); > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask); > > + > > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); > > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); > > > > @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) > > cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); > > cpumask_setall(&mask_all); > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask); > > + > > It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional > on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there. I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't return any result. Best, Sander > > > return 0; > > } > > > > -- > > 2.37.2
On 8/21/22 10:13, Sander Vanheule wrote: > On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: >>> For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test. This >>> should help with finding out why a certain test fails. >>> >>> Link: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@mail.gmail.com/ >>> Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> >>> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> >>> --- >>> lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c >>> index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 >>> --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c >>> +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c >>> @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ >>> static cpumask_t mask_empty; >>> static cpumask_t mask_all; >>> >>> +#define STR_MASK(m) #m >>> +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ >>> + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits, >>> cpumask_bits(mask)) >>> + >>> static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) >>> { >>> KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); >>> @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit >>> *test) >>> /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */ >>> cpu_hotplug_disable(); >>> >>> + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); >>> + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask); >>> + >>> EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); >>> EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); >>> >>> @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) >>> cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); >>> cpumask_setall(&mask_all); >>> >>> + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); >>> + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask); >>> + >> >> It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional >> on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? > > I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there. > > I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call > kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't return > any result. Maybe you can use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG to print a more detailed error and avoid printing the info when the test doesn't fail. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > Best, > Sander > >> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -- >>> 2.37.2 >
Hi Maíra, On Sun, 2022-08-21 at 11:02 -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: > > > On 8/21/22 10:13, Sander Vanheule wrote: > > On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > > > > For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test. This > > > > should help with finding out why a certain test fails. > > > > > > > > Link: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> > > > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > > > --- > > > > lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > > > index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > > > +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ > > > > static cpumask_t mask_empty; > > > > static cpumask_t mask_all; > > > > > > > > +#define STR_MASK(m) #m > > > > +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ > > > > + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), > > > > nr_cpumask_bits, > > > > cpumask_bits(mask)) > > > > + > > > > static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) > > > > { > > > > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); > > > > @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct > > > > kunit > > > > *test) > > > > /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests > > > > */ > > > > cpu_hotplug_disable(); > > > > > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask); > > > > + > > > > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); > > > > EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); > > > > > > > > @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) > > > > cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); > > > > cpumask_setall(&mask_all); > > > > > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); > > > > + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask); > > > > + > > > > > > It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional > > > on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? > > > > I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there. > > > > I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call > > kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't > > return > > any result. > > Maybe you can use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG to print a more detailed error and > avoid printing the info when the test doesn't fail. Yes, this is what I currently have for use with the _MSG() variants of the macros: +#define MASK_MSG(m) \ + "%s contains %sCPUs %*pbl", #m, (cpumask_weight(m) ? "" : "no "), nr_cpumask_bits, cpumask_bits(m) + For example, with (bogus) KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, ..., MASK_MSG(mask)) this becomes (trimmed): $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --build_dir=build-um cpumask [...] [18:15:33] # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:60 [18:15:33] Expected cpumask_empty(((struct cpumask *)(1 ? (cpu_all_bits) : (void *)sizeof(__check_is_bitmap(cpu_all_bits))))) to be true, but is false [18:15:33] [18:15:33] cpu_all_mask contains CPUs 0 [18:15:33] # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:61 [18:15:33] Expected cpumask_full(&mask_empty) to be true, but is false [18:15:33] [18:15:33] &mask_empty contains no CPUs [18:15:33] not ok 1 - test_cpumask_weight [18:15:33] [FAILED] test_cpumask_weight [...] Or on a real system: [ 1.246805] # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:59 [ 1.246805] Expected cpumask_empty(((struct cpumask *)(1 ? (cpu_all_bits) : (void *)sizeof(__check_is_bitmap(cpu_all_bits))))) to be true, but is false [ 1.246805] [ 1.246805] cpu_all_mask contains CPUs 0-1 [ 1.249756] not ok 1 - test_cpumask_weight I will send an updated series tomorrow, in case David or others have more more comments. Best, Sander
diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644 --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ static cpumask_t mask_empty; static cpumask_t mask_all; +#define STR_MASK(m) #m +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \ + kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits, cpumask_bits(mask)) + static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test) { KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty)); @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit *test) /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */ cpu_hotplug_disable(); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask); + EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online); EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present); @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test) cpumask_clear(&mask_empty); cpumask_setall(&mask_all); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all); + TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask); + return 0; }