Qian Cai wrote: > > On 2011-4-4, at 0:47, Bian Naimeng <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There are some problem in ksm tests. >> >> 1. We should break the test when checking is failure. > No, this is not the intention. The design here is to run all tests to check > for all stats to give a full picture even if the a single failure has been > observed. This type of the failures do not prevent the rest of the tests from > running, so there is no need to stop the tests now which also give more > insight to track down root causes.
Various reason can make checking failure, someone can make the test hangup. I did this test on RHEL5, i found ksmd stopped before doing "echo 2 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run", so group_check will be hanged on "new_num < old_num * 3". So, i think we should break the test if "run" is not expecting. >> 2. The condition "new_num < old_num * 3" seems uncomfortable, i think >> it should be "new_num < old_num + 3" > I don't understand. What error did you see from the testing output? Sometimes, the old_num is a big number, so it takes long time in this loop, i don't understand the purpose. Would you explain to me why we expect this condition "new_num < old_num * 3". >> 3. After stopping ksm(echo 2 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run), the ksmd >> will stop scaning pages, so looping in "new_num < old_num * 3" >> is wrong. > Ditto. > After stopping ksm, looping in "new_num < old_num * 3" will make the process hang up, because new_num does not be increased. Regards Bian > CAI Qian >> Signed-off-by: Bian Naimeng <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> testcases/kernel/mem/include/mem.h | 2 +- >> testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/include/mem.h >> b/testcases/kernel/mem/include/mem.h >> index 778d403..b640a63 100644 >> --- a/testcases/kernel/mem/include/mem.h >> +++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/include/mem.h >> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ void check(char *path, long int value); >> void verify(char value, int proc, int start, int end, int start2, int end2); >> void group_check(int run, int pages_shared, int pages_sharing, >> int pages_volatile, int pages_unshared, int sleep_millisecs, >> - int pages_to_scan); >> + int pages_to_scan, int scans); >> void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit); >> void check_ksm_options(int *size, int *num, int *unit); >> void write_cpusets(void); >> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c b/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c >> index 12e61e9..db1a7dd 100644 >> --- a/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c >> +++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c >> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ void check(char *path, long int value) >> >> tst_resm(TINFO, "%s is %ld.", path, atol(buf)); >> if (atol(buf) != value) >> - tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s is not %ld.", path, value); >> + tst_brkm(TFAIL, tst_exit, "%s is not %ld.", path, value); >> } >> >> void verify(char value, int proc, int start, int end, int start2, int end2) >> @@ -312,7 +312,8 @@ void verify(char value, int proc, int start, int end, >> int start2, int end2) >> >> void group_check(int run, int pages_shared, int pages_sharing, >> int pages_volatile, int pages_unshared, >> - int sleep_millisecs, int pages_to_scan) >> + int sleep_millisecs, int pages_to_scan, >> + int scans) >> { >> int fd; >> char buf[BUFSIZ]; >> @@ -332,7 +333,7 @@ void group_check(int run, int pages_shared, int >> pages_sharing, >> old_num = new_num = atoi(buf); >> if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) == -1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "lseek"); >> - while (new_num < old_num * 3) { >> + while (new_num < old_num + scans) { >> sleep(1); >> if (read(fd, buf, BUFSIZ) < 0) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "read"); >> @@ -587,7 +588,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit) >> if (kill(child[k], SIGCONT) == -1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "kill child[%d]", k); >> } >> - group_check(1, 2, size * num * 256 - 2, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num); >> + group_check(1, 2, size * num * 256 - 2, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num, 3); >> >> tst_resm(TINFO, "wait for child 1 to stop."); >> if (waitpid(child[1], &status, WUNTRACED) == -1) >> @@ -599,7 +600,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit) >> tst_resm(TINFO, "resume child 1."); >> if (kill(child[1], SIGCONT) == -1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "kill"); >> - group_check(1, 3, size * num * 256 - 3, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num); >> + group_check(1, 3, size * num * 256 - 3, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num, 3); >> >> tst_resm(TINFO, "wait for child 1 to stop."); >> if (waitpid(child[1], &status, WUNTRACED) == -1) >> @@ -613,7 +614,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit) >> if (kill(child[k], SIGCONT) == -1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "kill child[%d]", k); >> } >> - group_check(1, 1, size * num * 256 - 1, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num); >> + group_check(1, 1, size * num * 256 - 1, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num, 3); >> >> tst_resm(TINFO, "wait for all children to stop."); >> for (k = 0; k < num; k++) { >> @@ -627,7 +628,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit) >> tst_resm(TINFO, "resume child 1."); >> if (kill(child[1], SIGCONT) == -1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "kill"); >> - group_check(1, 1, size * num * 256 - 2, 0, 1, 0, size * 256 * num); >> + group_check(1, 1, size * num * 256 - 2, 0, 1, 0, size * 256 * num, 3); >> >> tst_resm(TINFO, "wait for child 1 to stop."); >> if (waitpid(child[1], &status, WUNTRACED) == -1) >> @@ -647,7 +648,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "open"); >> if (write(fd, "2", 1) != 1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "write"); >> - group_check(2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num); >> + group_check(2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num, 0); >> >> tst_resm(TINFO, "wait for all children to stop."); >> for (k = 0; k < num; k++) { >> @@ -668,7 +669,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int num, int unit) >> if (write(fd, "0", 1) != 1) >> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "write"); >> close(fd); >> - group_check(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num); >> + group_check(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, size * 256 * num, 0); >> while (waitpid(-1, &status, WUNTRACED | WCONTINUED) > 0) >> if (WEXITSTATUS(status) != 0) >> tst_resm(TFAIL, "child exit status is %d", >> -- >> 1.7.1 >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
