On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:18:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:30:00AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > If the whole system has only one cpu, that cpu won't be able to be
> > offlined, so there is no need onoff task is stil running.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > I hit something like the following while I was running rcutorture
> > in a guest with only one vCPU:
> >
> > [ 31.197457] rcu-torture:torture_onoff task: offlining 0
> > [ 31.197508] rcu-torture:torture_onoff task: offline 0 failed: errno -16
> >
> > I know this is an expected behavior, but think we could just stop
> > the onoff task if there is only one cpu.
>
> I find it a little bit unfortunate that this kicks off a thread just to
> immediately exit that thread, rather than never starting it in the first
> place. However, it also seems like the most convenient solution here,
> and I don't see much point in going out of the way to optimize this test
> for uniprocessor systems.
>
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <[email protected]>
Thank you both! Queued for testing and further review.
Thanx, Paul
> > kernel/torture.c | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/torture.c b/kernel/torture.c
> > index fb39a06bbef5..a85b7d61d9dd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/torture.c
> > +++ b/kernel/torture.c
> > @@ -194,6 +194,12 @@ torture_onoff(void *arg)
> > for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > maxcpu = cpu;
> > WARN_ON(maxcpu < 0);
> > +
> > + if (maxcpu == 0) {
> > + VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("only one cpu is found, onoff is
> > impossible");
> > + goto stop;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (onoff_holdoff > 0) {
> > VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("torture_onoff begin holdoff");
> > schedule_timeout_interruptible(onoff_holdoff);
> > @@ -209,6 +215,8 @@ torture_onoff(void *arg)
> > &sum_online, &min_online, &max_online);
> > schedule_timeout_interruptible(onoff_interval);
> > }
> > +
> > +stop:
> > torture_kthread_stopping("torture_onoff");
> > return 0;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.8.0
> >
>
