lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/5] selftests/resctrl: Cleanup properly when an error occurs in CAT test
From
On 11/1/22 03:43, Shaopeng Tan wrote:
> After creating a child process with fork() in CAT test, if there is
> an error occurs or such as a SIGINT signal is received, the parent
> process will be terminated immediately, but the child process will not
> be killed and also umount_resctrlfs() will not be called.
>
> Add a signal handler like other tests to kill child process, umount
> resctrlfs, cleanup result files, etc. when an error occurs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> index 6a8306b0a109..5f81817f4366 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> @@ -98,12 +98,21 @@ void cat_test_cleanup(void)
> remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME2);
> }
>
> +static void ctrl_handler(int signo)
> +{
> + kill(bm_pid, SIGKILL);
> + umount_resctrlfs();
> + tests_cleanup();
> + ksft_print_msg("Ending\n\n");

Is there a reason to print this message? Remove it unless it serves
a purpose.

> +
> + exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
> +}
> +
> int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char *cache_type)
> {
> unsigned long l_mask, l_mask_1;
> int ret, pipefd[2], sibling_cpu_no;
> char pipe_message;
> - pid_t bm_pid;

Odd. bm_pid is used below - why remove it here?

>
> cache_size = 0;
>
> @@ -181,17 +190,19 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char *cache_type)
> strcpy(param.filename, RESULT_FILE_NAME1);
> param.num_of_runs = 0;
> param.cpu_no = sibling_cpu_no;
> + } else {
> + /* set up ctrl-c handler */
> + if (signal(SIGINT, ctrl_handler) == SIG_ERR ||
> + signal(SIGHUP, ctrl_handler) == SIG_ERR ||
> + signal(SIGTERM, ctrl_handler) == SIG_ERR)
> + printf("Failed to catch SIGNAL!\n");

Is perror() more appropriate here?

> }
>
> remove(param.filename);
>
> ret = cat_val(&param);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - ret = check_results(&param);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + if (ret == 0)
> + ret = check_results(&param);

Why not use a goto in error case to do umount_resctrlfs() instead of changing
the conditionals?

>
> if (bm_pid == 0) {
> /* Tell parent that child is ready */
> @@ -201,7 +212,6 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char *cache_type)
> sizeof(pipe_message)) {
> close(pipefd[1]);
> perror("# failed signaling parent process");
> - return errno;
> }
>
> close(pipefd[1]);
> @@ -226,5 +236,5 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char *cache_type)
> if (bm_pid)
> umount_resctrlfs();
>
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }


With these changes made:

Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

thanks,
-- Shuah

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-02 10:42    [W:1.206 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site