{{TableOfContents}}This page is a dumping ground for ideas for new tests that could be added to Fuego.

Try to keep the tests in categories as shown below.= general system sanity =Here are some tests that are good for general system sanity: * LTP system call test (already in Fuego) * LTP posix test suite (already in Fuego) * LSB-FHS - Linux Standard Base Filesystem Hierarchy Standard test   * See https://www.opengroup.org/testing/lsb-fhs/

filesystem [edit section]

= filesystem === xfstests ==xfstests seems to be the new standard for measuring Linux file systemperformance.  We should include this test in fuego.

• clone with 'git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git' * I think this is the main upstream repository for xfstests (the repository at http://oss.sgi.com/ has been deprecated) * An automated xfstests infrastructure using kvm
• Ted Ts'o's work on automating xfstests * Toward better testing * Dave Chimmer's report on the status of xfstests at an event in 2014

See the following for more information: * https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/   * clone with 'git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git'   * I think this is the main upstream repository for xfstests (the repository at http://oss.sgi.com/ has been deprecated) * [[https://lwn.net/Articles/592783/|An automated xfstests infrastructure using kvm]]   * Ted Ts'o's work on automating xfstests * [[https://lwn.net/Articles/591985/|Toward better testing]]   * Dave Chimmer's report on the status of xfstests at an event in 2014

block layer performance measurement [edit section]

== block layer performance measurement ==Possibly something simple like 'time dd ...' is useful for catching some things (and it's short).

Here is a post from Linus Walleij about using a simple dd to measure block layerperformance.  He found a regression of performance using the MQ block layerscheduler, using this.

I got blk-mq running for MMC/SD today and I see a gross performanceregression, from 37 MB/s to 27 MB/s on Ux500 7.38 GB eMMCwith a simple dd test:

{{{I got blk-mq running for MMC/SD today and I see a gross performanceregression, from 37 MB/s to 27 MB/s on Ux500 7.38 GB eMMCwith a simple dd test:

BEFORE switching to MQ:

time dd if=/dev/mmcblk3 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=10241073741824 bytes (1.0GB) copied, 27.530335 seconds, 37.2MB/sreal    0m 27.54suser    0m 0.02ssys     0m 7.56s

AFTER switching to MQ:

time dd if=/dev/mmcblk3 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=10241073741824 bytes (1.0GB) copied, 37.170990 seconds, 27.5MB/sreal    0m 37.18suser    0m 0.02ssys     0m 7.32s

I will however post my hacky patch as a RFD to the blockdevs andthe block maintainers, along with the numbers and a speculationabout what may be causing it. asynchronous requests (requestpipelining) is one thing, another thing is front/back merge inthe block layer I guess.}}}

Bus testing [edit section]

= Bus testing === CAN bus testing ==From agl-discussions list Dec 13: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/automotive-discussions/2016-December/003056.html

I'm interested your benchmark amb can data.http://docs.automotivelinux.org/docs/apis_services/en/dev/reference/iotbzh2016/signaling/AGL-AppFW-CAN-Signaling-Benchmark.pdf

I want to test amb d-bus can data benchmark, So can you share your used "can data" and "amd configuration" ?

This test apparently has a CAN packet injector, written by Cogent.

year 2038 test [edit section]

= year 2038 test =Arnd Bergmann is a leading kernel expert on this topic.  He gave a talkat Linaro Connect 2017 in Budapest.  See his session at:http://connect.linaro.org/resource/bud17/bud17-512/and an lwn.net report on it here: https://lwn.net/Articles/717076/

There's a page with some very small test snippets at:http://maul.deepsky.com/~merovech/2038.html

kernel tests [edit section]

= kernel tests === kselftest ==== kernelci == * build test * boot test

all 0day tests [edit section]

= all 0day tests =Figure out a way to run all existing 0day tests.