On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:29:48AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> (I'm actually not working this week, but still thought of replying :))
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 02:57:11PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-4.9):
> >
> > commit: 46e26223e39c64763e321f229e324be15179c505 ("rcutorture: Make boost
> > test more robust")
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Joel-Fernandes/rcutorture-Disable-RT-throttling-for-boost-tests/20180611-074731
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
> > rcu/next
> >
> > in testcase: trinity
> > with following parameters:
> >
> > runtime: 300s
> >
> > test-description: Trinity is a linux system call fuzz tester.
> > test-url: http://codemonkey.org.uk/projects/trinity/
>
> I'll try to reproduce this, but it could be because after this patch, the
> boost test is actually working.
Quite possibly. ;-)
> The reason for the rcutorture test failure could be that the default
> kthread_prio for the system's RCU threads is set to 1 (unless overridden by
> rcutree.kthread_prio) which is also equal to the priority of the rcutorture's
> boost threads. Due to this the rcutorture test could starve the RCU threads
> as well and defeat the boosting mechanism. I was able to solve a similar
> issue by just passing rcutree.kthread_prio of 50 on the kernel command line.
>
> Paul, would it be ok if we changed the default kthread_prio to something > 1
> so that rcutorture can test properly without needing to pass any extra
> rcutree.* parameters?
>
> so something like this in kernel/rcu/tree.c ?
>
> static int kthread_prio = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST) ? 2 : 0;
Would it be possible to also condition this on rcutorture being built
in? Or are they doing modprobes for rcutorture?
Thanx, Paul
