This is long overdue.
There are several things that aren't nailed down (in-tree .kunitconfig's), or partially broken (GCOV on UML), but having them documented, warts and all, is better than having nothing.
This covers a bunch of the more recent features * kunit_filter_glob * kunit.py run --kunitconfig * slightly more detail on building tests as modules * CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
By my count, the only headline features now not mentioned are the KASAN integration and KernelCI json output support (kunit.py run --json).
And then it also discusses how to get code coverage reports under UML and non-UML since this is a question people have repeatedly asked.
Non-UML coverage collection is no different from normal, but we should probably explicitly call this out.
As for UML, I was able to get it working again with two small hacks.* E.g. with CONFIG_KUNIT=y && CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y Overall coverage rate: lines......: 15.1% (18294 of 120776 lines) functions..: 16.8% (1860 of 11050 functions)
Note: this doesn't document --alltests since this is not stable yet. Hopefully being run more frequently as part of KernelCI will help...
*Using gcc/gcov-6 and not using uml_abort() in os_dump_core(). I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for brendanhiggins@google.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC. To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com --- v2 -> v3: * Suggest --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6 instead of manually editing kunit_kernel.py * update instructions on how to remove uml_abort() call
v1 -> v2: Fix typos, drop --alltests, changed wordiing on config fragments. --- Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst | 1 + .../dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst | 258 ++++++++++++++++++ Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst | 2 + 3 files changed, 261 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst index 848478838347..7f7cf8d2ab20 100644 --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ KUnit - Unit Testing for the Linux Kernel style faq tips + running_tips
What is KUnit? ============== diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..e2e9af711d1b --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst @@ -0,0 +1,258 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +============================ +Tips For Running KUnit Tests +============================ + +Using ``kunit.py run`` ("kunit tool") +===================================== + +Running from any directory +-------------------------- + +It can be handy to create a bash function like: + +.. code-block:: bash + + function run_kunit() { + ( cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" && ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run $@ ) + } + +.. note:: + Early versions of ``kunit.py`` (before 5.6) didn't work unless run from + the kernel root, hence the use of a subshell and ``cd``. + +Running a subset of tests +------------------------- + +``kunit.py run`` accepts an optional glob argument to filter tests. Currently +this only matches against suite names, but this may change in the future. + +Say that we wanted to run the sysctl tests, we could do so via: + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ echo -e 'CONFIG_KUNIT=y\nCONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y' > .kunit/.kunitconfig + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run 'sysctl*' + +We're paying the cost of building more tests than we need this way, but it's +easier than fiddling with ``.kunitconfig`` files or commenting out +``kunit_suite``'s. + +However, if we wanted to define a set of tests in a less ad hoc way, the next +tip is useful. + +Defining a set of tests +----------------------- + +``kunit.py run`` (along with ``build``, and ``config``) supports a +``--kunitconfig`` flag. So if you have a set of tests that you want to run on a +regular basis (especially if they have other dependencies), you can create a +specific ``.kunitconfig`` for them. + +E.g. kunit has one for its tests: + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit/.kunitconfig + +Alternatively, if you're following the convention of naming your +file ``.kunitconfig``, you can just pass in the dir, e.g. + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit + +.. note:: + This is a relatively new feature (5.12+) so we don't have any + conventions yet about on what files should be checked in versus just + kept around locally. It's up to you and your maintainer to decide if a + config is useful enough to submit (and therefore have to maintain). + +.. note:: + Having ``.kunitconfig`` fragments in a parent and child directory is + iffy. There's discussion about adding an "import" statement in these + files to make it possible to have a top-level config run tests from all + child directories. But that would mean ``.kunitconfig`` files are no + longer just simple .config fragments. + + One alternative would be to have kunit tool recursively combine configs + automagically, but tests could theoretically depend on incompatible + options, so handling that would be tricky. + +Generating code coverage reports under UML +------------------------------------------ + +.. note:: + TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): There are various issues with UML and + versions of gcc 7 and up. You're likely to run into missing ``.gcda`` + files or compile errors. We know one `faulty GCC commit + https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/8c9434c2f9358b8b8bad2c1990edf10a21645f9d`_ + but not how we'd go about getting this fixed. The compile errors still + need some investigation. + +.. note:: + TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): for recent versions of Linux + (5.10-5.12, maybe earlier), there's a bug with gcov counters not being + flushed in UML. This translates to very low (<1%) reported coverage. This is + related to the above issue and can be worked around by replacing the + one call to ``uml_abort()`` with a plain ``exit()``. + + +This is different from the "normal" way of getting coverage information that is +documented in Documentation/dev-tools/gcov.rst. + +Instead of enabling ``CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL=y``, we can set these options: + +.. code-block:: none + + CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y + CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y + CONFIG_GCOV=y + + +Putting it together into a copy-pastable sequence of commands: + +.. code-block:: bash + + # Append coverage options to the current config + $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run + # Extract the coverage information from the build dir (.kunit/) + $ lcov -t "my_kunit_tests" -o coverage.info -c -d .kunit/ + + # From here on, it's the same process as with CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL=y + # E.g. can generate an HTML report in a tmp dir like so: + $ genhtml -o /tmp/coverage_html coverage.info + + +If your installed version of gcc doesn't work, you can tweak the steps: + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6 + $ lcov -t "my_kunit_tests" -o coverage.info -c -d .kunit/ --gcov-tool=/usr/bin/gcov-6 + + +Running tests manually +====================== + +Running tests without using ``kunit.py run`` is also an important use case. +Currently it's your only option if you want to test on architectures other than +UML. + +As running the tests under UML is fairly straightforward (configure and compile +the kernel, run the ``./linux`` binary), this section will focus on testing +non-UML architectures. + + +Running built-in tests +---------------------- + +When setting tests to ``=y``, the tests will run as part of boot and print +results to dmesg in TAP format. So you just need to add your tests to your +``.config``, build and boot your kernel as normal. + +So if we compiled our kernel with: + +.. code-block:: none + + CONFIG_KUNIT=y + CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y + +Then we'd see output like this in dmesg signaling the test ran and passed: + +.. code-block:: none + + TAP version 14 + 1..1 + # Subtest: example + 1..1 + # example_simple_test: initializing + ok 1 - example_simple_test + ok 1 - example + +Running tests as modules +------------------------ + +Depending on the tests, you can build them as loadable modules. + +For example, we'd change the config options from before to + +.. code-block:: none + + CONFIG_KUNIT=y + CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=m + +Then after booting into our kernel, we can run the test via + +.. code-block:: none + + $ modprobe kunit-example-test + +This will then cause it to print TAP output to stdout. + +.. note:: + The ``modprobe`` will *not* have a non-zero exit code if any test + failed (as of 5.13). But ``kunit.py parse`` would, see below. + +.. note:: + You can set ``CONFIG_KUNIT=m`` as well, however, some features will not + work and thus some tests might break. Ideally tests would specify they + depend on ``KUNIT=y`` in their ``Kconfig``'s, but this is an edge case + most test authors won't think about. + As of 5.13, the only difference is that ``current->kunit_test`` will + not exist. + +Pretty-printing results +----------------------- + +You can use ``kunit.py parse`` to parse dmesg for test output and print out +results in the same familiar format that ``kunit.py run`` does. + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse /var/log/dmesg + + +Retrieving per suite results +---------------------------- + +Regardless of how you're running your tests, you can enable +``CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS`` to expose per-suite TAP-formatted results: + +.. code-block:: none + + CONFIG_KUNIT=y + CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=m + CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS=y + +The results for each suite will be exposed under +``/sys/kernel/debug/kunit/<suite>/results``. +So using our example config: + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ modprobe kunit-example-test > /dev/null + $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/kunit/example/results + ... <TAP output> ... + + # After removing the module, the corresponding files will go away + $ modprobe -r kunit-example-test + $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/kunit/example/results + /sys/kernel/debug/kunit/example/results: No such file or directory + +Generating code coverage reports +-------------------------------- + +See Documentation/dev-tools/gcov.rst for details on how to do this. + +The only vaguely KUnit-specific advice here is that you probably want to build +your tests as modules. That way you can isolate the coverage from tests from +other code executed during boot, e.g. + +.. code-block:: bash + + # Reset coverage counters before running the test. + $ echo 0 > /sys/kernel/debug/gcov/reset + $ modprobe kunit-example-test diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst index 0e65cabe08eb..aa56d7ca6bfb 100644 --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst @@ -236,5 +236,7 @@ Next Steps ========== * Check out the :doc:`tips` page for tips on writing idiomatic KUnit tests. +* Check out the :doc:`running_tips` page for tips on + how to make running KUnit tests easier. * Optional: see the :doc:`usage` page for a more in-depth explanation of KUnit.
base-commit: de2fcb3e62013738f22bbb42cbd757d9a242574e