[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230317031339.10277-4-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:13:35 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
seanjc@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH rcu 3/7] locking: Reduce the number of locks in ww_mutex stress tests
The stress test in test_ww_mutex_init() uses 4095 locks since
lockdep::reference has 12 bits, and since we are going to reduce it to
11 bits to support lock_sync(), and 2047 is still a reasonable number of
the max nesting level for locks, so adjust the test.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202302011445.9d99dae2-oliver.sang@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
---
kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
index 29dc253d03af..93cca6e69860 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
@@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
if (ret)
return ret;
- ret = stress(4095, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
+ ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
if (ret)
return ret;
--
2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists