[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5880CD867814DFAAF8930E5BDAA79@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2023 05:04:41 +0000
From: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To: "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC: "dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
"josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for
PREEMPT_RT kernels
>On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:10:35PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted
> to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for
> spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's
> interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture
> tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
>
>A nice addition! Is this something you will be testing regularly?
>If not, should there be additional locktorture scenarios, perhaps prefixed
>by "RT-" to hint that they are not normally available?
>
>Or did you have some other plan for making use of these?
Hi Paul
Thanks for reply, in fact, I want to enrich the test of locktorture,
after all, under the PREEMPT_RT kernel, we lost the test of the
real spin lock.
Thanks
Zqiang
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ---
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> index 9425aff08936..521197366f27 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = {
> .name = "spin_lock_irq"
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock);
> +
> +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> + raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> + raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock);
> +}
> +
> +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops = {
> + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock,
> + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay,
> + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost,
> + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock,
> + .readlock = NULL,
> + .read_delay = NULL,
> + .readunlock = NULL,
> + .name = "raw_spin_lock"
> +};
> +
> +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags);
> + cxt.cur_ops->flags = flags;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags);
> +}
> +
> +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops = {
> + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq,
> + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay,
> + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost,
> + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq,
> + .readlock = NULL,
> + .read_delay = NULL,
> + .readunlock = NULL,
> + .name = "raw_spin_lock_irq"
> +};
> +#endif
> +
> static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock);
>
> static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void)
> static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] = {
> &lock_busted_ops,
> &spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> + &raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops,
> +#endif
> &rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops,
> &mutex_lock_ops,
> &ww_mutex_lock_ops,
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists