[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1164744877.2894.133.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:14:36 -0800
From: Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net>
To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc: akpm <akpm@...l.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 -mm] fault-injection: lightweight code-coverage
maximizer
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:18 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:51:30PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote:
> > Upon keying in
> > echo 1 >probability
> > echo 3 >verbose
> > echo -1 >times
> > a few dozen stacks are printk'ed, then system responsiveness
> > recovers to normal. Similarly, starting a non-trivial program
> > will print a few stacks before responsiveness recovers.
>
> What kind of test did you do?
First, waiting a few seconds for the standard FC-6 daemons to wake up.
Then, Xemacs and Firefox. Not tested on SMP.
> This doesn't maximize code coverage. It makes fault-injector reject
> any failures which have same stacktrace before.
Since the volume of (repeated) dumps is greatly reduced,
interval/probability can be set more aggressively without crippling
interaction. This increases the number of error recovery paths covered
per unit of wall clock time.
> Updating array in this way is not safe (SMP or interrupt).
You're right. Patch forthcoming.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists