linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] kunit: tool: actually track how long it took to run tests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:12:16 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     davidgow@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] kunit: tool: actually track how long it took to
 run tests

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:20 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> This is a long standing bug in kunit tool.
> Since these files were added, run_kernel() has always yielded lines.
>
> That means, the call to run_kernel() returns before the kernel finishes
> executing tests, potentially before a single line of output is even
> produced.
>
> So code like this
>   time_start = time.time()
>   result = linux.run_kernel(...)
>   time_end = time.time()
>
> would only measure the time taken for python to give back the generator
> object.
>
> From a caller's perspective, the only way to know the kernel has exited
> is for us to consume all the output from the `result` generator object.
> Alternatively, we could change run_kernel() to try and do its own book
> keeping and return the total time, but that doesn't seem worth it.
>
> This change makes us record `time_end` after we're done parsing all the
> output (which should mean we've consumed all of it, or errored out).
> That means we're including in the parsing time as well, but that should
> be quite small, and it's better than claiming it took 0s to run tests.
>
> Let's use this as an example:
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit example
>
> Before:
> Elapsed time: 7.684s total, 0.001s configuring, 4.692s building, 0.000s running
>
> After:
> Elapsed time: 6.283s total, 0.001s configuring, 3.202s building, 3.079s running
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>