Han Pingtian wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:52:40PM +0800, Bian Naimeng wrote: >> >> CAI Qian wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> 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. >>> What happened if you run the tests for a recent upstream kernel? There >>> are some patches for ksm recently merged upstream. If the problem still >>> persistent, please paste the EXACT OUTPUT from the ksm01 test. If it is >>> hung, please upload sysrq-t output somewhere. >>> >> Maybe there are some bugs in the RHEL6's kernel, but the purpose of this >> patch >> is not to workround these bugs, i want to fix the test's bug. >> >> Would you explain to me why we do this loop "while (new_num < old_num * 3)" >> in >> group_check, i think "while (new_num < old_num + 3)" is better. >> >> Some time ago, the following patch insert this loop. >> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=AANLkTi%3Dg%3DojJu0m%2B556rnekYenRTXtX%2BVBOj%3DrPmnjSw%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=ltp-list >> >> The changelog of this patch said "we should wait 3~5 increments of the >> /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/full_scans before checking ksm* testcases's results", but >> it do "while (new_num < old_num * 3)" actually. > I made a mistake. The code is what I wanted to do, but the changelog was > wrong. When testing the new ksm patch, the developer told us we must > wait 3~5 times increments of the number before checking testing > results. So I coded to wait til new_num >= old_num * 3 before checking > the results. >
The bigger old_new is, the longer time test takes, it's strange. > About 'echo 2 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run' problem, I have tested it with > ksm01. > If I run the 'echo 2 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run' before issue ksm test, > the content of /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run will be changed to 1 and the test > can finished successfully. I think we shoud not care this. > Only if I echo the 2 between the testing process, > ksm01 will hang up. On that time, new_num will be zero, so your plus 3 > method won't work either. So what should we do in this circumstance? > Please look at my patch, after stopping ksmd in the testing(echo 2 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run or echo 0 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run), group_check will skip waiting at the loop "new_num >= old_num * 3". Regards Bian > Thanks. > > Han Pingtian >> Regards >> Bian >> >>> CAI Qian >>> >>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
