lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [LTP] [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel
Hi!
> > rtbox:~ # /usr/local/ltp/conformance/interfaces/sigtimedwait/sigtimedwait_1-1.run-test
> > Test FAILED: sigtimedwait() did not return in the required time
> > time_elapsed: 1.197057
> > ...come on, you can do it...
> > rtbox:~ # /usr/local/ltp/conformance/interfaces/sigtimedwait/sigtimedwait_1-1.run-test
> > Test PASSED
> >
> > #define ERRORMARGIN 0.1
> > ...
> > if ((time_elapsed > SIGTIMEDWAITSEC + ERRORMARGIN)
> > || (time_elapsed < SIGTIMEDWAITSEC - ERRORMARGIN)) {
> > printf("Test FAILED: sigtimedwait() did not return in "
> > "the required time\n");
> > printf("time_elapsed: %lf\n", time_elapsed);
> > return PTS_FAIL;
> > }
> >
> > Looks hohum to me, but gripe did arrive with patch set, so you get a note.
>
> hohum is a euphemism. That's completely bogus.
>
> The only guarantee a syscall with timers has is: timer does not fire early.

While this is true, checking with reasonable error margin works just
fine 99% of the time. You cannot really test that timer expires, without
setting arbitrary margin.

Looking into POSIX sigtimedwait() timer should run on CLOCK_MONOTONIC so
we can call clock_getres(CLOCK_MONOTOINC, ...) double or tripple the
value and use it for error margin. And also fix the test to use
the CLOCK_MONOTONIC timer.

And of course the error margin must not be used when we check that the
elapsed time wasn't shorter than we expected.

Does that sound reasonable?

--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-22 13:01    [W:0.120 / U:1.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site