[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1466028583-8780-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:09:41 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
bobby.prani@...il.com, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/14] rcuperf: Don't treat gp_exp mis-setting as a WARN
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
0day found a boot warning triggered in rcu_perf_writer() on !SMP kernel:
WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
, the root cause of which is trying to measure expedited grace
periods(by setting gp_exp to true by default) when all the grace periods
are normal(TINY RCU only has normal grace periods).
However, such a mis-setting would only result in failing to measure the
performance for a specific kind of grace periods, therefore using a
WARN_ON to check this is a little overkilling. We could handle this
inside rcuperf module via some error messages to tell users about the
mis-settings.
Therefore this patch removes the WARN_ON in rcu_perf_writer() and
handles those checkings in rcu_perf_init() with plain if() code.
Moreover, this patch changes the default value of gp_exp to 1) align
with rcutorture tests and 2) make the default setting work for all RCU
implementations by default.
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Fixes: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57411b10.mFvG0+AgcrMXGtcj%fengguang.wu@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 14 +++++++++++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
index afd174e901c3..7b2dbdffd791 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>");
#define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING(s) \
do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0)
-torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
+torture_param(bool, gp_exp, false, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
torture_param(int, holdoff, 10, "Holdoff time before test start (s)");
torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads");
torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads");
@@ -358,8 +358,6 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg)
u64 *wdpp = writer_durations[me];
VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_writer task started");
- WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp);
- WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
WARN_ON(!wdpp);
set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
sp.sched_priority = 1;
@@ -626,6 +624,16 @@ rcu_perf_init(void)
firsterr = -ENOMEM;
goto unwind;
}
+ if (rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp) {
+ VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("All grace periods expedited, no normal ones to measure!");
+ firsterr = -EINVAL;
+ goto unwind;
+ }
+ if (rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp) {
+ VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("All grace periods normal, no expedited ones to measure!");
+ firsterr = -EINVAL;
+ goto unwind;
+ }
for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) {
writer_durations[i] =
kcalloc(MAX_MEAS, sizeof(*writer_durations[i]),
--
2.5.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists