Hi!
> +#define SAFE_PTHREAD(fn, ...) do { \
> + int ret = fn(__VA_ARGS__); \
> + if (ret) { \
> + TEST_ERRNO = ret; \
> + tst_brkm(TBROK | TTERRNO, cleanup, #fn); \
^
We have TRERRNO for the case of pthread
functions.
> + } \
> +} while (0)
> +
> +char *TCID = "clock_gettime04";
> +int TST_TOTAL = 1;
> +
> +static volatile sig_atomic_t done_testing;
> +static int opt_testtime;
> +static char *opt_testtimestr;
> +static option_t options[] = {
> + {"T:", &opt_testtime, &opt_testtimestr},
There is no need to use both opt_testtime and opt_testtimestr, you can
do just:
if (opt_testtimestr) {
...
}
> + {NULL, NULL, NULL}
> +};
> +static pthread_mutex_t exit_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
> +
> +static void setup(void);
> +static void cleanup(void);
> +
> +static void sigproc(int sig)
> +{
> + (void) sig;
> + done_testing = 1;
> +}
Shouldn't we rather do:
if (!done_testing)
done_testing = 1;
Because as far as I can see the alarm may stil fire between
one of the threads set done_testing to 2 and the if (done_testing == 1)
message.
> +int64_t get_thread_cpu_time(pthread_t thread)
> +{
> + clockid_t clockid;
> + int ret;
> + struct timespec tp;
> +
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_getcpuclockid, thread, &clockid);
> +
> + ret = clock_gettime(clockid, &tp);
> + if (ret)
> + tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "clock_gettime: %d", ret);
> +
> + return (tp.tv_sec * NANOSECS_PER_SEC) + tp.tv_nsec;
> +}
> +
> +static void *child(void *arg)
> +{
> + struct timespec tim;
> + int64_t t, t_last = 0;
> + int check_own_cpu_time = *(int *)arg;
> +
> + tim.tv_sec = 0;
> + tim.tv_nsec = 5000;
> +
> + while (!done_testing) {
> + nanosleep(&tim, NULL);
> +
> + if (!check_own_cpu_time)
> + continue;
> +
> + t = get_thread_cpu_time(pthread_self());
> + if (t < t_last) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL, "t: %" PRId64 " < t_last: %"
> + PRId64, t, t_last);
> + done_testing = 2;
> + } else {
> + t_last = t;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_mutex_lock, &exit_mutex);
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_mutex_unlock, &exit_mutex);
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void test(int seconds)
> +{
> + int i, child_check_cpu_time[] = { 0, 1 };
> + pthread_t thread[THREAD_COUNT];
> + clockid_t clockid[THREAD_COUNT];
> + int64_t thread_time[THREAD_COUNT], cur_time;
> +
> + done_testing = 0;
> + alarm(seconds);
> +
> + /* create children and make every 2nd child check its own
> + * cpu time as well. */
> + for (i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++) {
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_create, &thread[i], NULL, child,
> + &child_check_cpu_time[i % 2]);
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_getcpuclockid, thread[i], &clockid[i]);
> + tst_resm(TINFO, "thread no.: %d clockid: %d", i, clockid[i]);
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++)
> + thread_time[i] = get_thread_cpu_time(thread[i]);
> +
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_mutex_lock, &exit_mutex);
Hmm, shouldn't this mutex be locked before we create the threads
because otherwise some threads may have exited allready.
> + /* check periodically that cpu time of each thread
> + * doesn't go backwards */
> + while (!done_testing) {
> + for (i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++) {
> + cur_time = get_thread_cpu_time(thread[i]);
> + if (cur_time < thread_time[i]) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL, "cpu clock time went backwards "
> + "thread no. %d, clock id: %d"
> + " previous value: %" PRId64
> + " current value: %" PRId64,
> + i, clockid[i], thread_time[i],
> + cur_time);
> + done_testing = 2;
> + break;
> + }
> + thread_time[i] = cur_time;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* allow children to exit now */
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_mutex_unlock, &exit_mutex);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++)
> + SAFE_PTHREAD(pthread_join, thread[i], NULL);
> +
> + if (done_testing == 1)
> + tst_resm(TPASS, "Test completed, cpu times of all "
> + "thread clocks were monotonic");
> +}
> +
> +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> + int testtime = DEFAULT_TEST_TIME;
> + const char *msg = NULL;
> +
> + msg = parse_opts(argc, argv, options, NULL);
> + if (msg)
> + tst_brkm(TBROK, NULL, "OPTION PARSING ERROR - %s", msg);
> +
> + if (opt_testtime) {
> + testtime = atoi(opt_testtimestr);
> + if (testtime <= 0) {
> + tst_brkm(TBROK, NULL, "Invalid arg for -T: %s",
> + opt_testtimestr);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + setup();
> +
> + test(testtime);
Shouldn't the test(testtime) be still inside the for () loop with
TEST_LOOPING() because otherwise the test will gladly accept and ignore
the standard parameters (-i -I etc).
Otherwise it looks OK to me.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chru...@suse.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
