linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kselftest/timers: Set default threadtest values to simplify execution scripts

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]

Message-ID: <550B524C.5030104@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:48:44 -0600
From:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest/timers: Set default threadtest values to simplify
 execution scripts

On 03/19/2015 04:34 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 03/18/2015 09:51 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>>> In order to keep the kselftest Makefiles simpler, set the threadtest
>>> default values to the ones used in standard run_tests
>>>
>>> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
>>> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>>> Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/timers/threadtest.c | 8 ++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Applied to next for 4.1
>>
>> Some numbers for you with timer tests included:
>>
>> make kselftest target takes:
>>
>> real    11m50.499s
>> user    3m25.979s
>> sys     5m45.433s
>>
>> It is creeping up, previous timing was
>>
>> real 9.41
>> user 3.55
>> system 0:24.86
>>
>> Not concerned yet. Might be getting closer to
>> needing to defining quick vs long test categories.
> 
> Yea, the timekeeping tests are particularly rough about how long the
> run. In some cases we're having to watch for behavior that could be
> somewhat rare, so we need to watch for a fair amount of time.  In some
> cases we're doing our own calibrations which require a larger amount
> of time to ensure accuracy. And in other cases, we want to have timers
> that fire far enough out that any scheduler variance/noise is easy to
> filter out.
> 
> With the destructive tests, which re-run the validation tests
> repeatedly under different conditions, it ends up being about an hour!
> So I feel this pain.
> 
> But there's also probably some spots where 3 seconds seemed like a
> good value, but could be shorter.  So I'll have to take another look
> to see if we could reasonably compress some of the intervals we use
> down. There may also be some spots where we could parallelize the
> tests across the various clockids.
> 

If you can take a look to see which tests can be included in a
quick test run vs. longer test run in addition to destructive
vs. normal. I will work on adding categories soon. The logic
can be isolated in selftest/Makefile and timers/Makefile.

thanks,
-- Shuah

-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
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/