All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] LTP pre-release testing and freeze
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 05:10:08 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274865023.2004095.1462180208523.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160428122625.GA25587@rei>





----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Thursday, 28 April, 2016 2:26:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP pre-release testing and freeze
> 
> Hi!
> > Looks good from my side. I ran the usual set we use as smoke test
> > (syscalls, selection of mem/io/etc.) on
> >   RHEL6.2 through RHEL6.8 (i386, x86_64, ppc64, s390x)
> >   RHEL7.0 through RHEL7.2 (x86_64, ppc64, ppc64le, s390x, aarch64)
> > and ran mostly into known bugs in kernel / glibc.
> > 
> > Other than known issues, there were couple failures to note:
> > 
> > epoll_wait02
> > There is a tolerance, but it goes only one way (oversleep).
> > I occasionally see it waking up a ms earlier and then testcase
> > reports it as failure. This was new addition, so there are
> > no historical data for comparison.
> 
> That may be bug, since AFAIC all POSIX timers are not allowed to wake up
> earlier. The epoll_wait() is Linux specific, but the manual talks only
> about possible overrun as well.

I think it happened so far only on ppc/s390 guests, so my suspicion was
that high steal time could be a factor. I'll look into how much reproducible
this is with RHEL.

> 
> > personality01
> > PER_LINUX32 is masked on powerpc as PER_LINUX, so this
> > always fails.
> > 
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls.c:
> > long ppc64_personality(unsigned long personality)
> > {
> >         long ret;
> > 
> >         if (personality(current->personality) == PER_LINUX32
> >             && personality(personality) == PER_LINUX)
> >                 personality = (personality & ~PER_MASK) | PER_LINUX32;
> >         ret = sys_personality(personality);
> >         if (personality(ret) == PER_LINUX32)
> >                 ret = (ret & ~PER_MASK) | PER_LINUX;
> >         return ret;
> > }
> 
> So the fist if () makes sure that process cannot excape PER_LINUX32
> while the second hides PER_LINUX32 completly. I've missed the second
> part when I was rewriting the testcase. Looking at kernel sources
> sparc64 and s390 seems to do the same but the code assumes that
> PER_LINUX == 0.
> 
> SYSCALL_DEFINE1(s390_personality, unsigned int, personality)
> {
>         unsigned int ret;
> 
>         if (personality(current->personality) == PER_LINUX32 &&
>             personality(personality) == PER_LINUX)
>                 personality |= PER_LINUX32;
>         ret = sys_personality(personality);
>         if (personality(ret) == PER_LINUX32)
>                 ret &= ~PER_LINUX32;
> 
>         return ret;
> }
> 
> Does the test fail on s390x as well?

Yes, it does.

personality01    0  TINFO  :  Child process returned TPASS
personality01    1  TFAIL  :  personality01.c:80: PER_LINUX32: wrong personality read back 0 expected 8

> 
> It seems that mapping PER_LINUX32 to PER_LINUX is a common practice on
> 64 bit, maybe we should just skip that personality on anything than
> x86_64.

Agreed. I can send a patch.

Regards,
Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-02  9:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-20 14:30 [LTP] LTP pre-release testing and freeze Cyril Hrubis
2016-04-28 10:25 ` Jan Stancek
2016-04-28 12:26   ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-05-02  9:10     ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2016-05-02  9:45       ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-05-02 10:06         ` Jan Stancek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1274865023.2004095.1462180208523.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
    --to=jstancek@redhat.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.