linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent rcutorture less power-hungry

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

Message-ID: <19f34abd0806221424g1a96025dv86e36bb237d2dce1@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:24:06 +0200
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, josh@...edesktop.org,
	dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, dino@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	adobriyan@...il.com, oleg@...sign.ru, bunk@...nel.org, rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent rcutorture less power-hungry

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> This patch makes the non-module rcutorture a bit more friendly to
>> the power-conservation code.  This is a rather simple-minded approach.
>> More sophisticated approaches would get rid of the rcutorture tasks
>> while rcutorture execution was suppressed, but attempts thus far to
>> do this have not gone well -- calling rcu_torture_init() from a /proc
>> callout results in oopses.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I applied your three patches
>
> [PATCH] Make rcutorture more vicious: add stutter feature
> [PATCH] Make rcutorture more vicious: reinstate boot-time testing
> [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent
> rcutorture less power-hungry
>
> to v2.6.26-rc7 and gave it a quick testing in qemu. But it seems to
> hang during gdb self-tests at boot:

Okay, you might disregard that. I'm typing on the very same kernel
running on a real machine now, so I assume that it's just qemu's
fault. (Actually, setting the number of cpus to 2 instead of 3 would
run the kgdb tests, but with a lot of warnings). But qemu is known to
have been buggy with these things before. (Sorry for the noise.)


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/