[LTP] RFC: Proposed cgroup v2 and openat2 test case contributions for LTP

[Sebastian Chlad]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 13:35, Andrea Cervesato via ltp <ltp@lists.linux.it>
wrote:

> Hi Priyama,
>
> the cgroup testing suite in LTP can be a bit unstable due to the nature
> of cgroup v1 -> v2 migration. The V2 seems stable, but sometimes tests
> might produce false positives, mostly related to system configurations
> or system overload. We digged quite a lot into it in the past years and
> we ended up with a solution which "good enough" for regression testing,
> supporting both v1 and v2.
>
> Also, kselftests already cover many cgroup testing scenarios and we are
> not actively investing time on it.


I’m fully with Andrea here. There is already good and extensive cgroup test
coverage in kselftests, and this is also complemented by LTP tests that
exercise cgroups, so we are not in a bad position.

There are also good related tests in blktests, for example the blk-throttle
tests:
https://github.com/linux-blktests/blktests/tree/master/tests/throtl

Anyway, since you opened this issue:
https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/1328

let’s continue the conversation there. I’m going to comment there shortly.


> But you and others are welcome to try
> implementing something, if you think this can be helpful.
>
> My biggest concern is the code quality. cgroups can be a complex beast
> to handle with LTP API, which are made supporting v1 and v2.
>
> If you are willing to implement new tests, please consider test cases
> scenarios that are not implemented in LTP and kselftests. Those are the
> most valuable at the moment.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Andrea Cervesato
> SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
> andrea.cervesato@suse.com
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>