On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Han Pingtian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:25:54PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Han Pingtian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > The KSM developer tell us that we should wait 3~5 increments of the
>> > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/full_scans before checking ksm* testcases's results.
>> > Otherwise, there may be some stuck pages that cause the testing failed.
>>
>> A common mistake is thinking that sleep(3) is non-interruptable.
>> This proposed patch also has style-violations and is missing error
>> checking around lseek, et all. Please fix these items according to the
>> style guide.
>> Thanks,
>> -Garrett
> Thanks reviewing. The patched function will be called by
> testcases/kernel/mem/ksm/ksm* , which all call tst_sig() in setup().
> So I think we have processed the interruptable problem of sleep().
Are you sure? I suggest reading the RETURN VALUES section of
sleep(3), along with the notes about SA_RESTART in signal(7), and
compare that with what's implemented in the signal(3) equivalent in
tst_sig.
HTH,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
