Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] inotify: Add test for inotify mark destruction race
Hi! On Tue 25-08-15 11:29:25, Cyril Hrubis wrote: I've just started pre-release LTP testing and found out that the test timeouts (after an half of hour) on an 3.0.101 kernel. It looks like one iteration takes 0.2s there and the test would need 5 hours to finish. Can we reduce the number of TEARDOWNs to 100 so that it finishes in 20 seconds? Interesting, probably SRCU is much slower with this older kernel. From my experiments 100 iterations isn't quite reliable to trigger the oops in my testing instance. But 400 seem to be good enough. Honza -- Jan Kara j...@suse.com SUSE Labs, CR -- ___ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] inotify: Add test for inotify mark destruction race
Hi! I've just started pre-release LTP testing and found out that the test timeouts (after an half of hour) on an 3.0.101 kernel. It looks like one iteration takes 0.2s there and the test would need 5 hours to finish. Can we reduce the number of TEARDOWNs to 100 so that it finishes in 20 seconds? -- Cyril Hrubis chru...@suse.cz -- ___ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] inotify: Add test for inotify mark destruction race
Hi! Interesting, probably SRCU is much slower with this older kernel. From my experiments 100 iterations isn't quite reliable to trigger the oops in my testing instance. But 400 seem to be good enough. I've changed the nuber of iterations to 400 and pushed it to git, thanks. -- Cyril Hrubis chru...@suse.cz -- ___ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] inotify: Add test for inotify mark destruction race
Hi, On Tue 11-08-15 16:14:32, Cyril Hrubis wrote: Pushed with following changes: * Added GPL header at the start of the file * Removed cleanup parameter from SAFE calls in child because if one of the calls in child fails the temporary directory would be deleted, then parent would attempt to remove the directory and that will fail horribly. Ah, good point. * Moved to body of the test to separate function to spare some indentation. * Used tst_fork() instead of fork() (flushes userspace stdio buffers before fork, otherwise messages from test may end up duplicated several times) Ok, good, will know for next time. * Used ltp_syscall() instead of syscall() which handles ENOSYS etc. And this one as well. * Added inotify06 binary to gitignore. I keep forgetting about this :) Honza -- Jan Kara j...@suse.com SUSE Labs, CR -- ___ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] inotify: Add test for inotify mark destruction race
Hi! Pushed with following changes: * Added GPL header at the start of the file * Removed cleanup parameter from SAFE calls in child because if one of the calls in child fails the temporary directory would be deleted, then parent would attempt to remove the directory and that will fail horribly. * Moved to body of the test to separate function to spare some indentation. * Used tst_fork() instead of fork() (flushes userspace stdio buffers before fork, otherwise messages from test may end up duplicated several times) * Used ltp_syscall() instead of syscall() which handles ENOSYS etc. * Added inotify06 binary to gitignore. And checked that it still Opses kernel after these changes, thanks. -- Cyril Hrubis chru...@suse.cz -- ___ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
