live-patching.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Yannick Cote <ycote@redhat.com>
Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	joe.lawrence@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests/livepatch: rework test-klp-callbacks to use completion variables
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:16:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200602081654.GI27273@linux-b0ei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200528134849.7890-2-ycote@redhat.com>

On Thu 2020-05-28 09:48:46, Yannick Cote wrote:
> From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
> 
> The test-klp-callbacks script includes a few tests which rely on kernel
> task timings that may not always execute as expected under system load.
> These will generate out of sequence kernel log messages that result in
> test failure.
> 
> Instead of using sleep timing windows to orchestrate the test, rework
> the test_klp_callbacks_busy module to use completion variables.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yannick Cote <ycote@redhat.com>
> ---
>  lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c       | 42 +++++++++++++++----
>  .../selftests/livepatch/test-callbacks.sh     | 29 +++++++------
>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c
> index 40beddf8a0e2..c3df12f47e5e 100644
> --- a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c
> +++ b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_callbacks_busy.c
> @@ -5,34 +5,58 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>  
> -static int sleep_secs;
> -module_param(sleep_secs, int, 0644);
> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(sleep_secs, "sleep_secs (default=0)");
> +/* load/run-time control from sysfs writer  */
> +static bool block_transition;
> +module_param(block_transition, bool, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(block_transition, "block_transition (default=false)");
>  
>  static void busymod_work_func(struct work_struct *work);
> -static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(work, busymod_work_func);
> +static DECLARE_WORK(work, busymod_work_func);
> +static DECLARE_COMPLETION(busymod_work_complete);
>  
>  static void busymod_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> -	pr_info("%s, sleeping %d seconds ...\n", __func__, sleep_secs);
> -	msleep(sleep_secs * 1000);
> +	bool early_complete = block_transition;
> +
> +	pr_info("%s enter\n", __func__);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * When blocking the livepatch transition, set completion flag
> +	 * early so subsequent test commands see the transition.
> +	 */
> +	if (early_complete)
> +		complete(&busymod_work_complete);

I have to say that the code is really confusing. A completion called
"work_complete" is completed when the work gets actually. It is
completed later when the work is done immediately.

Do we need the completion at all? See below.

> +
> +	while (block_transition)

The compiler might optimize the code and avoid the re-reads. Please, use:

	/* Re-read variable in each cycle */
	while (READ_ONCE(block_transition))


> +		msleep(1000);

Nit: This is still a busy wait even though there is a big
delay between waits. The right solution would be using wait_event().
But feel free to keep msleep(). It is good enough for selftests.

> +
>  	pr_info("%s exit\n", __func__);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * In non-blocking case, wait until we're done to complete to
> +	 * ensure kernel log ordering
> +	 */
> +	if (!early_complete)
> +		complete(&busymod_work_complete);
>  }
>  
>  static int test_klp_callbacks_busy_init(void)
>  {
>  	pr_info("%s\n", __func__);
> -	schedule_delayed_work(&work,
> -		msecs_to_jiffies(1000 * 0));
> +	schedule_work(&work);
> +	wait_for_completion(&busymod_work_complete);

IMHO, the completion is not needed when using:

	schedule_work(&work);
	/*
	 * Print all messages from the work before returning from init().
	 * It helps to serialize messages from the loaded modules.
	 */
	if (!block_transition)
		flush_work(&work);

> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static void test_klp_callbacks_busy_exit(void)
>  {
> -	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&work);
> +	block_transition = false;

The compiler could move this assignment after the following
call. Please, use:

	/* Make sure that the variable is set before flushing work. */
	WRITE_ONCE(block_transition, false);


> +	cancel_work_sync(&work);

The work is not longer canceled. flush_work() better fits here.
Also I would do this only when the transition is blocked:

	if (block_transition) {
		/* Make sure that the variable is set before flushing work. */
		WRITE_ONCE(block_transition, false);
		flush_work(&work);
	}


Otherwise this is a nice improvement.

Best Regards,
Petr

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-02  8:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-28 13:48 [PATCH 0/4] selftests/livepatch: rework of test-klp-{callbacks,shadow_vars} Yannick Cote
2020-05-28 13:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests/livepatch: rework test-klp-callbacks to use completion variables Yannick Cote
2020-06-02  8:16   ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2020-05-28 13:48 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests/livepatch: rework test-klp-shadow-vars Yannick Cote
2020-06-02  9:25   ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-28 13:48 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests/livepatch: more verification in test-klp-shadow-vars Yannick Cote
2020-06-01 11:27   ` Miroslav Benes
2020-06-01 11:39   ` Miroslav Benes
2020-06-02 12:35   ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-28 13:48 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests/livepatch: fix mem leaks " Yannick Cote
2020-06-02  9:57   ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-29 15:12 ` [PATCH 0/4] selftests/livepatch: rework of test-klp-{callbacks,shadow_vars} Joe Lawrence
2020-06-01 11:48 ` Miroslav Benes
2020-06-02  5:01 ` Kamalesh Babulal

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=20200602081654.GI27273@linux-b0ei \
    --to=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ycote@redhat.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).