From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] selftests/timers/posix_timers: Test delivery of signals across threads
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 23:13:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240406211312.GD3060@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46ad25c9-f63c-4bb7-9707-4bc8b21ccaca@collabora.com>
Muhammad,
I am sorry, but... are you aware that this patch was applied over a year ago,
and then this code was updated to use the ksft_API?
Oleg.
On 04/07, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>
> On 3/16/23 5:30 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> >
> > Test that POSIX timers using CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID eventually deliver
> > a signal to all running threads. This effectively tests that the kernel
> > doesn't prefer any one thread (or subset of threads) for signal delivery.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > ---
> > v6:
> > - Update wording on what the test aims to test.
> > - Fix formatting per checkpatch.pl.
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c
> > index 0ba500056e63..8a17c0e8d82b 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c
> > @@ -188,6 +188,80 @@ static int check_timer_create(int which)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +int remain;
> > +__thread int got_signal;
> > +
> > +static void *distribution_thread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void distribution_handler(int nr)
> > +{
> > + if (!__atomic_exchange_n(&got_signal, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED))
> > + __atomic_fetch_sub(&remain, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test that all running threads _eventually_ receive CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID
> > + * timer signals. This primarily tests that the kernel does not favour any one.
> > + */
> > +static int check_timer_distribution(void)
> > +{
> > + int err, i;
> > + timer_t id;
> > + const int nthreads = 10;
> > + pthread_t threads[nthreads];
> > + struct itimerspec val = {
> > + .it_value.tv_sec = 0,
> > + .it_value.tv_nsec = 1000 * 1000,
> > + .it_interval.tv_sec = 0,
> > + .it_interval.tv_nsec = 1000 * 1000,
> > + };
> > +
> > + printf("Check timer_create() per process signal distribution... ");
> Use APIs from kselftest.h. Use ksft_print_msg() here.
>
> > + fflush(stdout);
> > +
> > + remain = nthreads + 1; /* worker threads + this thread */
> > + signal(SIGALRM, distribution_handler);
> > + err = timer_create(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, NULL, &id);
> > + if (err < 0) {
> > + perror("Can't create timer\n");
> ksft_perror() here
>
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + err = timer_settime(id, 0, &val, NULL);
> > + if (err < 0) {
> > + perror("Can't set timer\n");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < nthreads; i++) {
> > + if (pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, distribution_thread, NULL)) {
> > + perror("Can't create thread\n");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Wait for all threads to receive the signal. */
> > + while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < nthreads; i++) {
> > + if (pthread_join(threads[i], NULL)) {
> > + perror("Can't join thread\n");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (timer_delete(id)) {
> > + perror("Can't delete timer\n");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + printf("[OK]\n");
> ksft_test_result or _pass variant as needed?
>
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > {
> > printf("Testing posix timers. False negative may happen on CPU execution \n");
> > @@ -217,5 +291,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > if (check_timer_create(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID) < 0)
> > return ksft_exit_fail();
> >
> > + if (check_timer_distribution() < 0)
> > + return ksft_exit_fail();
> > +
> > return ksft_exit_pass();
> > }
>
> --
> BR,
> Muhammad Usama Anjum
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-06 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-16 12:30 [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread Marco Elver
2023-03-16 12:30 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] selftests/timers/posix_timers: Test delivery of signals across threads Marco Elver
2024-04-06 20:53 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2024-04-06 21:13 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2024-04-06 21:32 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-30 10:19 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread Marco Elver
2023-04-06 14:12 ` Marco Elver
2023-04-06 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-04-06 20:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-01 20:17 ` John Stultz
2024-04-02 9:07 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-02 14:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-02 17:23 ` John Stultz
2024-04-03 12:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 15:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-03 15:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 16:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 18:16 ` John Stultz
2024-04-03 19:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 19:35 ` John Stultz
2024-04-03 22:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-04 14:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-04 18:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-06 15:09 ` [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement check_timer_distribution() Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-06 15:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-06 22:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-08 8:30 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-08 10:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-08 10:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-08 18:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-08 22:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-09 11:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-09 11:45 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-09 12:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-09 13:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-10 22:21 ` John Stultz
2024-04-10 22:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-10 22:33 ` John Stultz
2024-04-11 12:41 ` [PATCH] " Mark Brown
2024-04-11 15:33 ` John Stultz
2024-04-11 12:44 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-11 14:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-11 15:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-11 16:03 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-12 12:35 ` [PATCH] selftests: fix build failure with NOLIBC Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-14 7:42 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-04 8:55 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-04 13:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-04 15:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-04 15:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-05 4:28 ` Dmitry Vyukov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240406211312.GD3060@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=usama.anjum@collabora.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).