Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:59:11 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] locktorture: doesn't check nreaders_stress when no readlock support |
| |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 07:44:24PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote: > When do locktorture for exclusive lock which doesn't have readlock > support, the following module parameters will be considered as valid: > > torture_type=mutex_lock nwriters_stress=0 nreaders_stress=1 > > But locktorture will do nothing useful, so instead of permitting > these useless parameters, let's reject these parameters by returning > -EINVAL during module init. > > Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Much better, much easier for people a year from now to understand. Queued for v5.11, thank you!
I did edit the commit log a bit as shown below, so please let me know if I messed anything up.
Thanx, Paul
commit 4985c52e3b5237666265e59f56856f485ee36e71 Author: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> Date: Fri Sep 18 19:44:24 2020 +0800
locktorture: Ignore nreaders_stress if no readlock support
Exclusive locks do not have readlock support, which means that a locktorture run with the following module parameters will do nothing:
torture_type=mutex_lock nwriters_stress=0 nreaders_stress=1
This commit therefore rejects this combination for exclusive locks by returning -EINVAL during module init.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c index 316531d..046ea2d 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c @@ -870,7 +870,8 @@ 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)) { pr_alert("lock-torture: must run at least one locking thread\n"); firsterr = -EINVAL; goto unwind;
| |