[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200131142943.120459-1-sgarzare@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:29:42 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH liburing v2 0/1] test: add epoll test case
Hi Jens,
this is a v2 of the epoll test.
v1 -> v2:
- if IORING_FEAT_NODROP is not available, avoid to overflow the CQ
- add 2 new tests to test epoll with IORING_FEAT_NODROP
- cleanups
There are 4 sub-tests:
1. test_epoll
2. test_epoll_sqpoll
3. test_epoll_nodrop
4. test_epoll_sqpoll_nodrop
In the first 2 tests, I try to avoid to queue more requests than we have room
for in the CQ ring. These work fine, I have no faults.
In the tests 3 and 4, if IORING_FEAT_NODROP is supported, I try to submit as
much as I can until I get a -EBUSY, but they often fail in this way:
the submitter manages to submit everything, the receiver receives all the
submitted bytes, but the cleaner loses completion events (I also tried to put a
timeout to epoll_wait() in the cleaner to be sure that it is not related to the
patch that I send some weeks ago, but the situation doesn't change, it's like
there is still overflow in the CQ).
Next week I'll try to investigate better which is the problem.
I hope my test make sense, otherwise let me know what is wrong.
Anyway, when I was exploring the library, I had a doubt:
- in the __io_uring_get_cqe() should we call sys_io_uring_enter() also if
submit and wait_nr are zero, but IORING_SQ_NEED_WAKEUP is set in the
sq.kflags?
Thanks,
Stefano
Stefano Garzarella (1):
test: add epoll test case
.gitignore | 1 +
test/Makefile | 5 +-
test/epoll.c | 386 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 390 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 test/epoll.c
--
2.24.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists