As noted in [0], SeaBIOS (QEMU default) makes a mess of the terminal, qboot does not.
It turns out this is actually useful with kunit.py, since the user is exposed to this issue if they set --raw_output=all.
qboot is also faster than SeaBIOS, but it's is marginal for this usecase.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+i-1C0wYb-gZ8Mwh3WSVpbk-LF-Uo+njVbASJPe1WXDURo...
Both SeaBIOS and qboot are x86-specific.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman jackmanb@google.com --- tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py b/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py index dc794907686304b325dbe180149169dd79bcd44f..4a6bf4e048f5b05c889e3b9b03046f14cc9b0bcc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py @@ -7,4 +7,6 @@ CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y''', qemu_arch='x86_64', kernel_path='arch/x86/boot/bzImage', kernel_command_line='console=ttyS0', - extra_qemu_params=[]) + # qboot is faster than SeaBIOS and doesn't mess up + # the terminal. + extra_qemu_params=['-bios', 'qboot.rom'])
--- base-commit: 8ea24baaaa869adeb39c6b9ce7542657a7251b56 change-id: 20250124-kunit-qboot-5201945f7e86
Best regards,
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 19:01, Brendan Jackman jackmanb@google.com wrote:
As noted in [0], SeaBIOS (QEMU default) makes a mess of the terminal, qboot does not.
It turns out this is actually useful with kunit.py, since the user is exposed to this issue if they set --raw_output=all.
qboot is also faster than SeaBIOS, but it's is marginal for this usecase.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+i-1C0wYb-gZ8Mwh3WSVpbk-LF-Uo+njVbASJPe1WXDURo...
Both SeaBIOS and qboot are x86-specific.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman jackmanb@google.com
This looks good to me, thanks. My only real concern is that qboot might need a newer version of qemu, but it seems to have been around for 10 years, and is working under Debian here, so it's probably fine.
One future idea would be to look into microvms, which might be even faster. I'll give myself a TODO to experiment with those.
This'll go in post-rc1, but nevertheless, it's: Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Cheers, -- David
tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py b/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py index dc794907686304b325dbe180149169dd79bcd44f..4a6bf4e048f5b05c889e3b9b03046f14cc9b0bcc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/x86_64.py @@ -7,4 +7,6 @@ CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y''', qemu_arch='x86_64', kernel_path='arch/x86/boot/bzImage', kernel_command_line='console=ttyS0',
extra_qemu_params=[])
# qboot is faster than SeaBIOS and doesn't mess up# the terminal.extra_qemu_params=['-bios', 'qboot.rom'])
base-commit: 8ea24baaaa869adeb39c6b9ce7542657a7251b56 change-id: 20250124-kunit-qboot-5201945f7e86
Best regards,
Brendan Jackman jackmanb@google.com
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 09:45, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
One future idea would be to look into microvms, which might be even faster. I'll give myself a TODO to experiment with those.
Yeah, that would be cool although I think they require CONFIG_PARAVIRT which isn't an entirely negligible constraint. Still, microvm doesn't have to be mandatory.
Anyway, I don't personally think that startup speed is a big issue for KUnit right now, I only mentioned it as a nice freebie for qboot, the terminal garbage was my only real motivator.
This'll go in post-rc1, but nevertheless, it's: Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thanks!
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Brendan Jackman -
David Gow