On 10/24/2012 03:49 PM, Jan Stancek wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wanlong Gao" <[email protected]> >> To: "Jan Stancek" <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected], "Om Prakash PAL" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2012 9:03:16 AM >> Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test >> >> On 10/24/2012 02:43 PM, Jan Stancek wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Wanlong Gao" <[email protected]> >>>> To: "Om Prakash PAL" <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2012 2:45:47 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test >>>> >>>> On 10/23/2012 06:05 PM, Om Prakash PAL wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Wanlong Gao [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:07 PM >>>>> To: Om Prakash PAL >>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test >>>>> >>>>> On 10/23/2012 05:24 PM, Om Prakash PAL wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am working on syscall test: shmat01.c >>>>>> >>>>>> I have some confusion: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In setup() : it is allocating shared memory by shmget() and >>>>>> then >>>>>> attaching by shmat() and after that detaching the attached >>>>>> address (i.e. shmdt()) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> if (shmdt((const void *)base_addr) == -1) { >>>>>> >>>>>> tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "Couldn't detach shared >>>>>> memory"); >>>>>> >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And again in main function it is using same "base_addr" as >>>>>> attaching address, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> addr = shmat(*(TC[i].shmid), base_addr+TC[i].offset, >>>>>> >>>>>> TC[i].flags); >>>>>> >>>>>> how can we ensure(100%) that base_addr (virtual) will be free >>>>>> till >>>>>> this point for attaching?. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we can't, but I didn't see any fail on this. Did you see >>>>> any >>>>> testing failure here? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I got some failure and the reason of failure is : the >>>>> address >>>>> at which we want to attach is busy. >>>> >>>> OK, please feel free to send a patch, or can you tell us how to >>>> reproduce it? >>> >>> I recall I could reproduce it, if I added single printf: >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ltp/16480 >> >> Do you get a solution? Send out a patch? > > No, I haven't send any patch. > > About solution: > I'm thinking, that instead of probing with shmat, we can mmap large chunk of > memory, > and then set base_addr somewhere in the middle and unmap the chunk. > That is, using address that get_unmapped_area() is unlikely to pick.
This idea seems good, bug how can you decide the size of this "chunk of memory"? Thanks, Wanlong Gao > > Regards, > Jan > >> >> >> Thanks, >> Wanlong Gao >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jan >>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
