[RFC] [PATCH 0/18] xfstests: move tests out of top level

[Ben Myers]

Hi Dave,

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:07:24PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:00:25PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:42:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:16:42PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:09:26AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > > > For it to be useful in an automated test environment, it would need
> > > > > > > to be re-implemented from scratch with reliable recording of results
> > > > > > > and the ability to determine if a result is unusual or not. None of
> > > > > > > this exists - it's just a framework to run a couple of benchmarks
> > > > > > > and dump some output to stdout using the xfstests machine config
> > > > > > > files....
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I have tried integrating other benchmarks into xfstests a while back
> > > > > > > (e.g. compile bench, fsmark, etc) and using the results for some
> > > > > > > kind of meaningful performance regression test. I rapidly came to
> > > > > > > the conclusion that the infrastructure was not up to scratch and
> > > > > > > that my simple handwritten standalone test scripts to iterate
> > > > > > > through benchmarks and capture results was much easier to use and
> > > > > > > modify than to jump through the weird bench infrastructure hoops.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, no, I don't think it's worth keeping at all.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You've already made it clear that you feel the current bench implementation is
> > > > > > not worth keeping.  Once a suitable replacement for the bench infrastructure
> > > > > > has been implemented we can remove the old one.  Until then we prefer to keep
> > > > > > what we have in the tree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's not how the process works 
> > > > 
> > > > That is exactly how the process works.  You posted an RFC and Mark and the XFS
> > > > team at SGI walked through your patch set.  Mark subsequently posted the
> > > > commentary in reply to your RFC.  Cruft or not, the removal of a feature goes
> > > > through the same review process as everything else.
> > > 
> > > Sure, but you need to justify your arguments for keeping something
> > > with evidence and logic - handwaving about wanting something is, and
> > > always has been, insufficient justification. That's the part of the
> > > process I'm talking about - that statements of need require
> > > evidence, especially when you agreed to the removal at LSF in San
> > > Fransisco a few months ago. My arguments at the time were:
> > > 
> > > 	a) nobody is actually using it,
> > > 	b) it has effectively been unmaintained since 2003
> > > 	c) it has no regression analysis or detection capability
> > > 	d) it shares *very little* of xfstests
> > > 	e) it gets in the way of cleaning up xfstests
> > > 	f) there are far better workload generators that are being
> > > 	actively maintained.
> > > 
> > > And AFAIA, nothing has changed in the past few months.
> > 
> > "In this case, SGI would like to keep the benchmark capability in xfstests in
> > order have a better chance of catching performance regressions."  There has
> > been a been performance regression in the past few months (and there will be
> > more in the future), we have had performance regressions internally too, and
> > this has brought the value of having benchmarks in xfstests into sharp focus.
> 
> I heard you the first time - it didn't answer the first questions I
> asked, Repeating it doesn't answer the second set of questions,
> either, which could be answered with "yes" or "no". That is: are you
> using bench *right now* for perforamnce regression testing?

No.  Most of the folks who are doing perf regression testing are rolling their
own... Iozone is most used AFAICT.
 
> The information I'm after is whether removing it breaks your current
> test environment. Given you are suggesting moving it out of the way
> rather than removal, I think the answer is "no" but I'd like a yes
> or no confirming that.

Removing bench won't break our test environment.
 
> > > OK, so moving it to revision history will be just fine until patches
> > > are written some time in the future to make it work again in a
> > > subdirectory.
> > > 
> > > But before anything major gets done with bench, there needs to be a
> > > coherent development plan produced.
> > 
> > Doesn't removing bench fall in to the category 'major'?
> 
> Not really, because it's all of 5 minutes work in a larger project.
> But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is and so I need to
> communicate and develop a plan....
> 
> > Did you develop a
> > coherent development plan on how to replace it with something better?
> 
> Yes, I communicated and developed a plan, and got agreement on it,
> too. The plan was to remove it as there are other benchmark/test
> suites better suited to performance regression testing than
> xfstests. We discussed this and a consensus was reached on this at
> LSF. Everything in the patchset is in my notes from the LSF
> discussion....

Well then I'm sorry to flip flop on you like that.  In light of the trouble
we've been having with performance regressions I feel we should take another
look at having benchmarks in xfstests.  We could use something that is
sufficiently handy that benchmarks are likely to be run on a regular basis
(say, on the weekend) because you got setup of the benchmarks for free when you
set up xfstests.

> > > Then, once we have an idea of what is going to be done, the white
> > > elephant can then be addressed: is xfstests the right place for this
> > > functionality?
> > 
> > I think it is the perfect place.  xfstests already has a wide following with
> > linux filesystems folks, so if we get bench cleaned up everyone will have
> > access to the same suite automatically.  I'd really like the focus to stay on
> > improving xfstests as opposed to some other suite, and I prefer not to be doing
> > SGI internal-only test suites for benchmarking and testing where possible.
> 
> There's no reason why a new performance regression suite would have
> to be SGI internal. If you want it to be part of xfstests so the
> work is put into a public GPL project, then I think your motivation
> for using/keeping bench is all wrong....
> 
> Anyway, let's leave it there. Gather requirements (e.g. put out a
> request for discussion on linux-fsdevel), research existing tools
> that can do the job, develop a plan, then we can discuss how best ot
> proceed.

Yeah, lets leave it there for a little while.

> > > FWIW, this is the sort of reporting that a performance regression
> > > test suite should produce:
> > > 
> > > http://lists.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/3.2/
> > 
> > Yeah, that's really nice.  Do you happen to know what tool created it?
> 
> IIRC, a relatively simple set of scripts around the outside of ffsb,
> lockstat, oprofile and gnuplot. You should probably ask Eric if he
> can share them...

I don't know Eric.  Can you make an introduction?
 
> > > Indeed, why start with bench when you can start with something far
> > > more advanced....
> > 
> > I understand that bench is bitrotted, but it still has some value even today.
> > Phil has agreed to take this on as a project so the bitrot will be addressed.
> > You have good points about needing a better plan in this area.  But we should
> > come up with a plan before taking the major step of removing benchmarking from
> > xfstests entirely.  That's not handwaving, it's good sense.  ;)
> > 
> > Lets stay focused on improving xfstests...
> 
> Yep, I'm trying to do that by removing peripheral, non-core
> functionality. ;)
> 
> Really, it makes no difference to me whether I remove bench or move
> it to a sub-directory in a broken state.  If you are really that set
> on it being useful, I'll move it to another directory (say
> "broken-bench-do-not-sit-down-here" :) and leave it in a
> busted state. If it hasn't been fixed 6 months later, I'll post
> patches to remove it again....

I got the impression that Christoph is doing a review of this patch set as
well.  If you wait for Christoph's review before moving bench it will give Phil
a little time to come up with a plan for discussion.

Thanks,
Ben