[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1410544947.12906.6.camel@linux-t7sj.site>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:02:27 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] locktorture: Add infrastructure for torturing read
locks
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 09:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:40:41PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > In addition, introduce a new nreaders_stress module parameter. The
> > default number of readers will be the same number of writers threads.
> > Writer threads are interleaved with readers. Documentation is updated,
> > respectively.
>
> Nice!!!
>
> Conditional fairness checks in the future? (As in verifying that if
> the rwlock in question claims some degree of fairness, trying to break
> that guarantee, and contrariwise, if the lock is unfair, making sure
> to avoid starvation during the test?)
Yep, there are all sorts of interesting things we can measure in rw
runs. In this set I'm only trying to establish a minimum infrastructure.
Future work will be pretty trivial (at least code wise) to implement
once this sort of thing is in.
> And one nit below.
[...]
> C initialization does this already, no need to add the NULL initializers.
Sure, I always tend to be explicit when initializing. I guess you won't
like the context initialization in patch 9/9.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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