Welcome to LWN.net

The following subscription-only content has been made available to you
by an LWN subscriber. Thousands of subscribers depend on LWN for the
best news from the Linux and free software communities. If you enjoy this
article, please consider accepting the trial offer on the right. Thank you
for visiting LWN.net!

Free trial subscription

Try LWN for free for 1 month: no payment
or credit card required. Activate
your trial subscription now
and see why thousands of
readers subscribe to LWN.net.

By Jake Edge

September 9, 2020


LPC

Unlike many of the previous gatherings of the Linux realtime developers, their
microconference at the virtual 2020 Linux Plumbers
Conference
had a
different feel about it. Instead of being about when and how to get the
feature into the mainline, the microconference had two sessions that looked at what
happens after the realtime patches are upstream. That has not quite happened
yet, but is likely for the 5.10 kernel, so the developers were
looking to the future of the stable realtime trees and, relatedly, plans
for continuous-integration (CI) testing for realtime kernels.

Stable trees

Since the realtime patch set will be fully upstream “any release now”, a
plan needs to be made for what will happen with the realtime stable (RT-stable)
kernels, Mark Brown said to start his session. Currently, there are RT-stable
kernels maintained for each of the long-term support (LTS) stable kernel versions;
the realtime patch set is backported to those kernels. But once the
patches are in the mainline, there will be no longer be a realtime tree to backport.


[Mark Brown]

He wondered if people should simply be told to use the mainline stable
kernels if they want the realtime feature. If so, any realtime performance
regressions that occur in the stable trees will need to be addressed and
those fixes will need to be accepted by the stable maintainers. Realtime
developers will need to help with any conflicts that arise in backporting
fixes to the stable kernels as well.

Testing is another area that will need to be handled; in particular,
realtime performance needs to be tested as part of the stable release
process. Right now, Greg Kroah-Hartman largely outsources testing of
specific use cases and workloads on stable kernels to those who are
interested in ensuring those things continue to function well. Testing of
realtime performance will need to be part of that.

Steven Rostedt was volunteered for the testing job by Clark Williams;
Rostedt did not exactly disagree, noting that he had done that kind of
thing in the past. Automating the realtime testing is
something that needs to be done, he said. Ideally, each new stable kernel
would be downloaded automatically, built, and run through a series of
realtime-specific tests. Brown wryly noted that the next session in the
microconference was on CI testing. He also said that it would
make more sense to test the stable candidates, rather than the released
kernels, so that any problems could be found before they get into the hands
of users.

At that point Kroah-Hartman popped up to say that the realtime kernel is
not unique in any way; “you’re special just like anybody else”. He will
take regression fixes into the tree as needed and can provide various ways to trigger
the building and testing of the kernels for realtime. Rostedt agreed that
realtime is not special in any way from the perspective of the stable
maintainers; but the realtime developers need to work out how to automate
their testing.

Brown said that currently it is up to the RT-stable maintainers to apply the
patches to a stable tree and manually test the resulting kernel.
Kroah-Hartman suggested adding the realtime testing to the KernelCI infrastructure, so that it will
be automatically built and tested whenever a stable candidate is released.
Currently, the realtime patches are not merged into the stable tree right
away, Rostedt said, because the stable changes often conflict with the
realtime patches, but
that should not be a problem once it is all upstream.

Getting into KernelCI is “very easy”, Kroah-Hartman said, but Brown noted
that the kinds of testing that need to be done for realtime is different
than for other parts of the kernel. The realtime tests have a performance
criteria rather than a functional criteria, Williams said. But
Kroah-Hartman said that KernelCI has both functional and performance
testing now, so there should be no real barrier to adding the realtime
tests. Brown agreed, but said that someone needs to get the tests into a
form that fits into the infrastructure.

As an example, Rostedt said that he runs a test that builds the kernel over
and over again on multiple cores, while also running hackbench
multiple times. All of that runs over a weekend, while he runs cyclictest
with realtime tasks to record their latencies; he does not expect to find
any latencies
greater that 50µs. That kind of test would simply need to be packaged up and automated so that it
can be run by bots of various sorts.

Another question is whether realtime should have its own separate staging
tree to try out new features, such as a new futex() interface,
Rostedt said. Would it make sense to turn the current RT-stable tree into a
“testing playground” for new features, he asked. If those features were
deemed useful for the mainline, they could be backported to the stable
kernels as well.
But Williams wondered if
it was time to “come back into the
fold and not stay out in the cold”; he sees the value in an “RT-next” for
development purposes, but does not think it would work well to support
these features in earlier kernel series. While it did not come up in the
discussion, those kinds of changes might also run afoul of the stable
kernel rules
about only fixing actual bugs.

Rostedt more or less agreed with Williams but noted that there is a kind of “catch-22” for API
design, in that you cannot get a good API without users testing it, but
that it is hard to get users to test without having a good API. Williams
agreed that there is a problem there, but did not think backporting from
RT-next would really help solve it—it is likely to just bring headaches for
the realtime developers. Testers could build and use RT-next itself, he said.

The main thing that needs to happen after realtime is in the mainline is to
make sure there is a team paying attention to it going forward, Rostedt
said. That team would ensure that realtime does not get broken in the
stable kernels. Williams asked if there would be designated handlers
for realtime bugs, but Rostedt thought that, once again, there is nothing
special about realtime once it gets upstream. People will report bugs in
the usual fashion, and the stable maintainers will direct the bugs to the
realtime developers as needed.

Now is a good time to get the automated testing in place, Sasha Levin said;
it is more difficult to do that after the feature is in the mainline. Most
of the RT-stable patches will apply automatically on the stable candidates
at this point, Williams said, so those can be used to start working up the
automated testing strategy. A plan soon formed to use Daniel Wagner’s
scripts for the 4.4-rt tree as a starting point to try to automatically
merge the stable release candidates and the realtime patches; if that
succeeds, then testing could be kicked off to see if there are any
realtime-specific problems in the resulting kernel. Once realtime is in
the mainline, the merging step would simply be dropped.

Continuous integration

As the first session wound down, it segued nicely into a look at CI for
realtime in the mainline led by Bastian Germann. There is some automated
testing in place for realtime, he noted, though it was apparently not well
known: the CI-RT system. It is a
Jenkins-based CI system that is tailored to the
needs of testing the realtime kernel. There is a one known lab running it
at Linutronix (Germann’s employer) on hardware donated by members of the Linux Foundation
Real-Time Linux project
.

Realtime developers can configure tests in CI-RT via a Git repository. The results
of the tests are reported on the CI-RT site and also by email to the
developer who is running them. The kernels are built on a build server,
then booted on the target hardware, which serves as the first level of
test. After that, the system runs tests somewhat similar to what Rostedt had
described earlier. It uses cyclictest on both idle and stressed systems;
the stress is created by hackbench coupled with other processes, such as
a recursive grep that will generate a lot of interrupts, he said.
The cyclictest results are then recorded for the systems.

Once realtime gets into the mainline, the CI-RT system can be used as is, he
said, just by reconfiguring the Git source being used. Beyond the mainline
itself, there are some other trees that should get tested, including some
that came out in the previous session, Germann said. The current release candidate for
the mainline and linux-next should be tested; the stable kernels should be
tested as well, including their release candidates as was discussed. The
test frequency and duration will need to be established for each tree; for
example, he suggested that linux-next could be tested for eight hours every night.

No other CI systems currently run realtime tests, he said, though
Brown wants to get them working in KernelCI. Germann said that more labs should
be testing the realtime kernel once it gets merged. That will cover more
hardware as well as raise the awareness of realtime among kernel
developers. In order for that to happen, the realtime project needs to
support other CI systems; KernelCI support is in the works, but he asked if
there are other test or CI systems that should have support for realtime tests.

After something of a digression into how to handle signing Git tags in an
automated fashion, which was deemed undesirable, Nikolai Kondrashov
suggested that CI-RT send its reports to KernelCI. He and others are
working on collecting
and unifying test results
in a common database.

Germann asked about the kinds of data that could be collected; ideally,
CI-RT would want to present more than just a “pass” or “fail” and would
include the
latency measurements that were used to make that determination. Currently,
the schema only provides a way to report the status of the test, Kondrashov
said, but there is a way to attach additional data. The project is trying
to work with the developers and operators of the various testing systems to
determine what additional information should be added to the JSON schema.
Veronika Kabatova mentioned that the Red Hat Continuous Kernel Integration (CKI)
project would be willing to start running realtime tests, which would come
with integration into the KernelCI unified reporting for free.

Mel Gorman said that SUSE also runs a Jenkins-based CI system that uses
some of the
realtime tests as part of its performance testing. He had some suggested
configurations for his MMTests that could be used to
help with realtime testing. Those could be combined with hackbench or kernel
compilation runs and cyclictest to determine if the realtime latency
requirements are being met. It might make sense to integrate the realtime
tests into some other existing testing client framework (such as MMTests),
rather than trying to make multiple versions of those tests targeted at
each different CI system, he said.

The various CI efforts tend to congregate in the #kernelci channel on
freenode or in the automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org
mailing list. Attendees plan to work with those groups to determine the
right path forward in order
get more CI testing for the realtime kernel. Once the realtime patches are
finally merged, the CI-RT system should
provide a good starting point for CI testing moving forward.

As noted, these sessions were rather differently focused than most of those
in the past. The final merging of the realtime patch set will make a big
difference in how the project interacts with the rest of the kernel and the
overall kernel ecosystem. It is important to get out ahead of the game with plans for
stable-tree maintenance,
along with ideas on how to make sure that the feature stays functional in the
fast-moving mainline. The microconference would seem to have helped
with both.








Did you like this article? Please accept our
trial subscription offer to be
able to see more content like it and to participate in the discussion.


(Log in to post comments)

Read More

ترك الرد

من فضلك ادخل تعليقك
من فضلك ادخل اسمك هنا