linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to rcutorture

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:05:30 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...nel.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...uxtronix.de,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, tytso@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	oleg@...sign.ru, twoerner.k@...il.com, billh@...ppy.monkey.org,
	nielsen.esben@...glemail.com, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to rcutorture

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:06:35AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:47:04AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>> One major item: this new test feature really needs a new module parameter to
>>>> enable or disable it.
>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST is the parameter -- if not set, then no test.
>>> This parameter is provided by the accompanying RCU-boost patch.
>> It seems useful for rcutorture to use or not use the preempting thread
>> independently of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST.  That would bring you from two
>> cases to four, and the two new cases both make sense:
>>
>> * CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=n, but run rcutorture with the preempting thread.
>>   This configuration allows you to demonstrate the need for
>>   CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST, by showing what happens when you need it and don't
>>   have it.
>>
>> * CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y, but run rcutorture without the preempting
>>   thread.  This configuration allows you to test with rcutorture while running
>>   a *real* real-time workload rather than the simple preempting thread, or
>>   just test basic RCU functionality.
>>
>> A simple boolean module_param would work here.
> 
> OK, am finally with you.  See below for updated patch.

Looks good to me.

> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...nel.org>

- Josh Triplett

-
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/