[Intel-gfx] [RFC/Draft] Testing requirements for upstream drm/i915 patches
idr at freedesktop.org
Wed Oct 30 19:11:27 CET 2013
On 10/30/2013 09:00 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> [This is cross-posted to the public intel-gfx mailing list at
> I'll also present a quick overview of this at Gavin's kernel PDT next
> Hi all,
> So in the past half year we've had tons of sometimes rather heated
> about getting patches merged. Often these discussions have been in the
> of specific patch series, which meant that people are already invested.
> contributed to the boiling emotions. I'd like to avoid that here by
> making this
> a free-standing discussion.
> There's a bunch of smaller process tuning going on, but the big thing
> I'd like
> to instate henceforth is that automated test coverage is a primary
> for anything going upstream. In this write up I'll detail my reasons,
> considerations and expectations. My plan is to solicit feedback over the
> few days and then publish an edited and polished version to my blog.
> After that I'll put down my foot on this process so that we can go back to
> coding and stop blowing through so much time and energy on waging
> Feedback and critique highly welcome.
> Cheers, Daniel
> Testing Requirements for Upstreaming (Draft)
> I want to make automated test coverage an integral part of our feature
> and bufix
> development process. For features this means that starting with the
> design phase
> testability needs to be considered an integral part of any feature. This
> to go up through the entire development process until when the
> implementation is
> submitted together with the proposed tests. For bugfixes that means the
> fix is
> only complete once the automated testcase for it is also done, if we
> need a new
> This specifically excludes testing with humans somewhere in the loop. We
> extremely limited in our validation resources, every time we put
> something new
> onto the "manual testing" plate something else _will_ fall off.
> - More predictability. Right now test coverage often only comes up as a
> when I drop my maintainer review onto a patch series. Which is too
> late, since
> it'll delay the otherwise working patches and so massively frustrates
> I hope by making test requirements clear and up-front we can make the
> upstreaming process more predictable. Also, if we have good tests from
> the get-go
> there should be much less need for me to drop patches from my trees
> after having them merged.
> - Less bikeshedding. In my opinion test cases are an excellent means to
> bikesheds - we've had in the past seen cases of endless back&forths
> where writing a simple testcase would have shown that _all_ proposed
> color flavours are actually broken.
> The even more important thing is that fully automated tests allow us to
> legitimately postpone cleanups. If the only testing we have is manual
> then we have only one shot at a feature tested, namely when the developer
> tests it. So it better be perfect. But with automated tests we can
> cleanups with too high risks of regressions until a really clear need is
> established. And since that need often never materializes we'll save
> - Better review. For me it's often helps a lot to review tests than the
> code in-depth. This is especially true for reviewing userspace interface
> - Actionable regression reports. Only if we have a fully automated
> testcase do
> we have a good chance that QA reports a regression within just a few
> Everything else can easily take weeks (for platforms and features
> which are
> explicitly tested) to months (for stuff only users from the community
> And especially now that much more shipping products depend upon a working
> i915.ko driver we just can't do this any more.
> - Better tests. A lot of our code is really hard to test in an automated
> fashion, and pushing the frontier of what is testable often requires a
> lot of
> work. I hope that by making tests an integral part of any feature work
> and so
> forcing more people to work on them and think about testing we'll
> advance the state of the art at a brisker pace.
> Risks and Buts
> - Bikeshedding on tests. This plan is obviously not too useful if we just
> replace massive bikeshedding on patches with massive bikeshedding on
> testcases. But right now we do almost no review on i-g-t patches so
> the risk
> is small. Long-term the review requirements for testcases will certainly
> increase, but as with everything else we simply need to strive for a good
> balance to strike for just the right amount of review.
> Also if we really start discussing tests _before_ having written
> massive patch
> series we'll do the bikeshedding while there's no real rebase pain. So
> even if
> the bikeshedding just shifts we'll benefit I think, especially for
> really big features.
> - Technical debt in test coverage. We have a lot of old code which still
> completely lacks testcases. Which means that even small feature work
> might be
> on the hook for a big pile of debt restructuring. I think this is
> occasionally. But I think that doing an assement of the current state of
> test coverage of the existing code _before_ starting a feature instead
> of when the patches are ready for merging should help a lot, before
> everyone is invested into patches already and mounting rebase pain looms
This is actually an opportunity in disguise. Once you have identified
some of the places that are really lacking coverage, you give new people
the task to create tests for some small areas. This gives the new
person a way to learn the code and make a contribution without hurting
> Again we need to strive for a good balance between "too many tests to
> up-front for old code" and "needs for tests that only the final review
> uncovers creating process bubbles".
> - Upstreaming of product stuff. Product guys are notoriuosly busy and
> tests is actual work. Otoh the upstream codebase feeds back into _all_
> trees (and the upstream kernel), so requirements are simply a bit
> higher. And
> I also don't think that we can push the testing of some features fully to
> product teams, since they'll be pissed really quickly if every update
> they get
> from us breaks their stuff. So if these additional test requirements
> to the past) means that some product patches won't get merged, then I
> that's the right choice.
> - But ... all the other kernel drivers don't do this. We're also one of the
> biggest driver's in the kernel, with a code churn rate roughly 5x
> worse than
> anything else and a pretty big (and growing) team. Also, we're often the
> critical path in enabling new platforms in the fast-paced mobile space.
> Different standards apply.
> Since the point here is to make the actual test requirements known
> up-front we
> need to settle on clear expectations. Since this is the part that actually
> matters in practice I'll really welcome close scrutiny and comments here.
> - Tests must fully cover userspace interfaces. By this I mean exercising
> all the
> possible options, especially the usual tricky corner cases (e.g.
> array sizes, overflows). It also needs to include tests for all the
> userspace input validation (i.e. correctly rejecting invalid input,
> including checks for the error codes). For userspace interface additions
> technical debt really must be addressed. This means that when adding a
> new flag and we currently don't have any tests for those flags, then
> I'll ask for a testcase which fully exercises all the flag values we
> currently support on top of the new interface addition.
> - Tests need to provide a reasonable baseline coverage of the internal
> state. The idea here isn't to aim for full coverage, that's an
> impossible and
> pointless endeavor. The goal is to have a good starting point of tests
> so that
> when a tricky corner case pops up in review or validation that it's not a
> terribly big effort to add a specific testcase for it.
In Mesa we've started adding tests in Mesa (run with 'make check') in
addition to the piglit tests. These allow us to poke at internal
interfaces in ways that are difficult or impossible to do directly from
a test that lives on the other side of the API. The hope is that this
will help prevent "revealed" bugs. It's those bugs where a change in an
unrelated piece of code exposes a bug that had previously existed.
Is something like that sensible (or even possible) in the kernel?
> - Issues discovered in review and final validation need automated test
> The reasoning is that anything which slipped the developer's attention is
> tricky enough to warrant an explicit testcase, since in a later
> there's a good chance that it'll be missed again. This has a bit a risk
> to delay patches, but if the basic test coverage is good enough as per
> the previous point it really shouln't be an issue.
These are the bugs most likely to need the previously mentioned
"internal" tests. "Function X will crash in situation Y. The code that
calls X won't cause Y, but..."
> - Finally we need to push the testable frontier with new ideas like pipe
> modeset state cross checking or arbitrary monitor configuration injection
> (with fixed EDIDs and connector state forcing). The point here is to
> new crazy ideas, and the expectation is very much _not_ that
> developers then
> need to write testcases for all the old bugfixes that suddenly became
> testable. That workload needs to be spread out over a bunch of features
> touching the relevant area. This only really applies to features and
> code paths which are currently in the "not testable" bucket anyway.
> This should specify the "what" decently enough, but we also need to look
> at how
> tests should work.
> Specific testcases in i-g-t are obviously the preferred form, but for some
> features that's just not possible. In such cases in-kernel self-checks like
> the modeset state checker of fifo underrun reporting are really good
> approaches. Two ceaveats apply:
> - The test infrastructure really should be orthogonal to the code being
> In-line asserts that check for preconditions are really nice and
> useful, but
> since they're closely tied to the code itself have a good chance to be
> in the same ways.
> - The debug feature needs to be enabled by default, and it needs to be
> Otherwise no one will notice that something is amiss. So currently the
> underrun reporting doesn't really count since it only causes debug level
> output when something goes wrong. Of course it's still a really good
> tool for
> developers, just not yet for catching regressions.
> Finally the short lists of excuses that don't count as proper test
> coverage for
> a feature.
> - Manual testing. We are ridiculously limited on our QA manpower. Every
> time we
> drop something onto the "manual testing" plate something else _will_
> drop off.
> Which means in the end that we don't really have any test coverage. So
> if patches don't come with automated tests, in-kernel cross-checking or
> some other form of validation attached they need to have really good
> reasons for doing so.
> - Testing by product teams. The entire point of Intel OTC's "upstream
> strategy is to have a common codebase for everyone. If we break
> product trees
> every time we feed an update into them because we can't properly
> test a given feature then the value of upstreaming features is greatly
> diminished in my opinion and could potentially doom collaborations with
> product teams. We just can't have that.
> This means that when products teams submit patches upstream they also
> to submit the relevant testcases to i-g-t.
> Intel Semiconductor AG
> Registered No. 020.30.913.786-7
> Registered Office: World Trade Center, Leutschenbachstrasse 95, 8050
> Zurich, Switzerland
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by
> others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the Intel-gfx