On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:14:36PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote:
> First, waiting a few seconds for the standard FC-6 daemons to wake up.
> Then, Xemacs and Firefox. Not tested on SMP.
Is it failslab or fail_page_alloc ?
> > This doesn't maximize code coverage. It makes fault-injector reject
> > any failures which have same stacktrace before.
>
> Since the volume of (repeated) dumps is greatly reduced,
> interval/probability can be set more aggressively without crippling
> interaction. This increases the number of error recovery paths covered
> per unit of wall clock time.
>
It seems artificial. Injecting failures into slab or page allocator causes
vastly greater range of errors and it should be. I feel what you really
want is new fault capability.
Fault injection is designed be extensible. It's not only for failslab,
fail_page_alloc, and fail_make_request.
If we want to inject errors into try_something() and have own tuning or
setting, we just need to extend fault attribute and define own judging
function,
struct fail_try_something_attr {
struct gorgeous_tuning tuning;
struct fail_attr attr;
} = fail_try_something = {
.attr = FAULT_ATTR_INITIALIZER,
};
static int should_fail_try_something(void *data)
{
if (tuning_did_clever_decision(&fail_try_something.tuning, data))
return 0;
return should_fail(&fail_try_something.attr);
}
Then insert it into try_something()
int try_something(void *data)
{
if (should_fail_try_something(data))
return 0;
...
return 1;
}
Common debugfs entries for fault capabilities will be complicated
soon by pushing new entries for every fault case or pattern.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
