Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:19:00 +0000 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] locktorture: Make the rt_boost factor a tunable |
| |
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 10:27:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:28:39PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote: > > On 2022-11-23 at 01:21:04 +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > The rt boosting in locktorture has a factor variable large enough that > > > boosting only happens once every minute or so. Add a tunable to educe > > > the factor so that boosting happens more often, to test paths and arrive > > > at failure modes earlier. With this change, I can set the factor to > > > like 50 and have the boosting happens every 10 seconds or so. > > > > > > Tested with boot parameters: > > > locktorture.torture_type=mutex_lock > > > locktorture.onoff_interval=1 > > > locktorture.nwriters_stress=8 > > > locktorture.stutter=0 > > > locktorture.rt_boost=1 > > > locktorture.rt_boost_factor=50 > > > locktorture.nlocks=3 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > > --- > > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 12 +++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > > index 5a388ac96a9b..e4529c2166e9 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > > +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ torture_param(int, stat_interval, 60, > > > "Number of seconds between stats printk()s"); > > > torture_param(int, stutter, 5, "Number of jiffies to run/halt test, 0=disable"); > > > torture_param(int, rt_boost, 0, "Perform an rt-boost from the writer, always 1 for rtmutex_lock"); > > > +torture_param(int, rt_boost_factor, 50000, "A factor determining how often rt-boost happens"); > > > torture_param(int, verbose, 1, > > > "Enable verbose debugging printk()s"); > > > torture_param(int, nlocks, 1, > > > @@ -132,15 +133,15 @@ static void torture_lock_busted_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused) > > > > > > static void torture_rt_boost(struct torture_random_state *trsp) > > > { > > > - const unsigned int factor = 50000; /* yes, quite arbitrary */ > > > + const unsigned int factor = rt_boost_factor; /* yes, quite arbitrary */ > > > > > > if (!rt_boost) > > > return; > > > > > > if (!rt_task(current)) { > > > /* > > > - * Boost priority once every ~50k operations. When the > > > - * task tries to take the lock, the rtmutex it will account > > > + * Boost priority once every rt_boost_factor operations. When > > > + * the task tries to take the lock, the rtmutex it will account > > > * for the new priority, and do any corresponding pi-dance. > > > */ > > > if (trsp && !(torture_random(trsp) % > > > @@ -150,8 +151,9 @@ static void torture_rt_boost(struct torture_random_state *trsp) > > > return; > > > } else { > > > /* > > > - * The task will remain boosted for another ~500k operations, > > > - * then restored back to its original prio, and so forth. > > > + * The task will remain boosted for another 10*rt_boost_factor > > Maybe I understand incorrectly, the code is > > cxt.nrealwriters_stress * factor * 2, should it be 2 rather than 10? > > It looks that way to me, but I might be missing something. Joel? > > May I know where the 10 comes from?
The comment in existing code was 500k ops.
Yes, Chen is right, the comment can be improved to mention the actual equation. I was just going by the initial comment of ~500K ops. Since factor now defaults to 50k, this translates to 500k (10 times the factor) ops which it does for a 4-5 CPU system.
But I am Ok with the comment changing to what Chen suggested though!
thanks,
- Joel
| |