Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:49:23 -0800 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/9] rcu: Add rcutorture system-shutdown capability |
| |
[Resending with attachment this time.]
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 03:43:58PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:58:56PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:44:47PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:15:45PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:32:26PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 01:46:15PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > From: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although it is easy to run rcutorture tests under KVM, there is currently > > > > > > > no nice way to run such a test for a fixed time period, collect all of > > > > > > > the rcutorture data, and then shut the system down cleanly. This commit > > > > > > > therefore adds an rcutorture module parameter named "shutdown_secs" that > > > > > > > specified the run duration in seconds, after which rcutorture terminates > > > > > > > the test and powers the system down. The default value for "shutdown_secs" > > > > > > > is zero, which disables shutdown. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > >From your recent post on this, I thought you found a solution through > > > > > > the init= parameter, which seems preferable. > > > > > > > > > > For some things, the init= parameter does work great. I do intend to > > > > > use it when collecting event-tracing and debugfs data, for example. > > > > > > > > > > However, there is still a need for RCU torture testing that will operate > > > > > correctly regardless of how userspace is set up. That, and there are > > > > > quite a few different kernel test setup, each with their own peculiar > > > > > capabilities and limitations. So what happened was that before people > > > > > suggested the init= approach, I implemented enough of the in-kernel > > > > > approach to appreciate how much it simplifies life for the common case of > > > > > "just torture-test RCU". As in I should have done this long ago. > > > > > > > > Seems like it would work just as easily to point init at a statically > > > > linked C program which just sleeps for a fixed time and then shuts down. > > > > However, given the special-purpose nature of rcutorture, I won't > > > > complain that strongly. > > > > > > I did consider a statically linked C program, but that can introduce the > > > need for cross-compilation into situations that do not otherwise need it. > > > > Wouldn't you need to cross-compile the kernel anyway in such situations? > > Not necessarily, consider for example ABAT. (IBM-specific test setup > for those unfamiliar with it -- related to autotest.)
Which already handles compiling a kernel for you; ABAT just doesn't make it as easy to compile userspace programs as it does for kernels. :)
> I suspect that the only way for you to be convinced is for you to write > a script that takes your preferred approach for injecting a test into > (say) a KVM instance.
Done and attached.
> Then compare that script to adding a few parameters to the boot line, > namely: "rcutorture.stat_interval=15 rcutorture.shutdown_secs=3600 > rcutorture.rcutorture_runnable=1". ;-)
I actually think stat_interval makes perfect sense, as does runnable.
> > > rcu_torture_shutdown(void *arg) > > > { > > > long delta; > > > unsigned long jiffies_snap; > > > > > > VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("rcu_torture_shutdown task started"); > > > jiffies_snap = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies); > > > > Why do you need to snapshot jiffies in this version but not in the > > version you originally posted? > > Because in the original, the maximum error was one second, which was > not worth worrying about.
The original shouldn't have an error either. If something incorrectly caches jiffies, either version would sleep forever, not just for an extra second.
> > > while (ULONG_CMP_LT(jiffies_snap, shutdown_time) && > > > !kthread_should_stop()) { > > > delta = shutdown_time - jiffies_snap; > > > if (verbose) > > > printk(KERN_ALERT "%s" TORTURE_FLAG > > > "rcu_torture_shutdown task: %lu " > > > "jiffies remaining\n", > > > torture_type, delta); > > > > I suggested dropping this print entirely; under normal circumstances it > > should never print. It will only print if > > schedule_timeout_interruptible wakes up spuriously. > > OK, I can qualify with a firsttime local variable.
Oh, i see; it does print the very first time through. In that case, you could move the print out of the loop entirely, rather than using a "first time" flag.
> > > schedule_timeout_interruptible(delta); > > > jiffies_snap = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies); > > > } > > > > Any reason this entire loop body couldn't just become > > msleep_interruptible()? > > Aha!!! Because then it won't break out of the loop if someone does > a rmmod of rcutorture. Which will cause the rmmod to hang until > the thing decides that it is time to shut down the system. Which > is why I need to do the sleep in smallish pieces -- I cannot sleep > longer than I would be comfortable delaying the rmmod. > > Which is why I think I need to revert back to the old version that > did the schedule_timeout_interruptible(1).
Does kthread_stop not interrupt an interruptible kthread? As far as I can tell, rmmod of rcutorture currently finishes immediately, rather than after all the one-second sleeps finish, which suggests that it wakes up the threads in question.
- Josh Triplett [unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream] | |