[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20201105234719.23307-13-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:47:04 -0800
From: paulmck@...nel.org
To: rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.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, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/28] locktorture: Ignore nreaders_stress if no readlock support
From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
Exclusive locks do not have readlock support, which means that a
locktorture run with the following module parameters will do nothing:
torture_type=mutex_lock nwriters_stress=0 nreaders_stress=1
This commit therefore rejects this combination for exclusive locks by
returning -EINVAL during module init.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
index 316531d..046ea2d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
@@ -870,7 +870,8 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void)
goto unwind;
}
- if (nwriters_stress == 0 && nreaders_stress == 0) {
+ if (nwriters_stress == 0 &&
+ (!cxt.cur_ops->readlock || nreaders_stress == 0)) {
pr_alert("lock-torture: must run at least one locking thread\n");
firsterr = -EINVAL;
goto unwind;
--
2.9.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists