Re: Kernel testing

Seth M. Landsman (
Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:14:55 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Oliver Xymoron wrote:

> > FWIW, this is a great idea, and I'll help (not volunteer to
> > coordinate, but help) write this thing if there is an interest ... The
> > one caveat I see is that we should create a test suite that will run in
> > approx. 6 hours. I would be (and I think so would others) willing to run
> > this thing on my office machine, if I can set it going when I leave in the
> > evening and have my machine back when I come in the next morning ...
> I think the time is very flexible - I was thinking the bulk of the time
> would be spent on stress testing like crashme rather than functionality
> testing. Even a very complete set of functionality tests would be well
> less than 6 hours, I'd think, because any single "does this syscall
> return the right value?" test is going to be nearly instantaneous.

Hmm, I agree, a simple make test would do wonders for linux,
something which goes through all the syscalls and stuff like that, making
sure everything returns sane values.
However, the real test of the kernel does come when linux is
running under a NORMAL_LOAD * 25 type of situation. That is something
that needs to take time. The question on the table is then, what type of
load do we want on the system, doing / thrashing / kicking the crap out of
what and for how long?
I'm not a kernel hacker (yet), so I can't answer these questions
as well as I'd want ...