lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] locktorture: doesn't check nreaders_stress when no readlock support
From
Date
Hi Paul,

On 2020/9/18 0:58, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:59:09PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
>> To ensure there is always at least one locking thread.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
>> index 9cfa5e89cff7f..bebdf98e6cd78 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
>> @@ -868,7 +868,8 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void)
>> goto unwind;
>> }
>>
>> - if (nwriters_stress == 0 && nreaders_stress == 0) {
>> + if (nwriters_stress == 0 &&
>> + (!cxt.cur_ops->readlock || nreaders_stress == 0)) {
>
> You lost me on this one. How does it help to allow tests with zero
> writers on exclusive locks? Or am I missing something subtle here?
>
The purpose is to prohibit test with only readers on exclusive locks, not allow it.

So if the module parameters are "torture_type=mutex_lock nwriters_stress=0 nreaders_stress=3",
locktorture can fail early instead of continuing but doing nothing useful.

Regards,
Tao

> Thanx, Paul
>
>> pr_alert("lock-torture: must run at least one locking thread\n");
>> firsterr = -EINVAL;
>> goto unwind;
>> --
>> 2.25.0.4.g0ad7144999
>>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-18 03:13    [W:0.067 / U:33.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site