From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334D6C4361B for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [167.114.26.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771B023C8F for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:29:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 771B023C8F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lists.lttng.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Crlvd5LZdz1WHG; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:49 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1607538590; bh=KTGpDsGNuqEsgoiiD6wTHhbt2lMFN7IIi7ol6GBpr8A=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=Gax3ZdJ7FuCJedPI7NUxyGfn/J4MALfiIBk/U9Ekt0AUoNP1vNYXnzSXdg47WUzfk Arm2CwRwR0vlnPQp4vVH0qwQ1GvGSqGFkGNUGwcV0H2UmTM0Qy7qGSkKE7LZe5cqLW g/U2HVxxadyOhT69wNKZjKRiPBdmuCufhtDhlgbo1fgkaHQgi4AV8gpo/o95uYOY07 YBiZ/lVFHlTsZnEIZARex7EuZybNtC+xjledH6RBLH10xEvpl5K20Ld7uP6uMW73GC lnC4/ohPtMyRZKU081i//Qx7iUuFWl8YAYe1s+yD13BDX8d0Aud1SSh+l+5Qu3eG5p UXMKMmOmAKp/A== Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Crlvc0vLJz1WHD for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B422FE1BB; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id BznsuoCZcMIy; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CCE2FE287; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 56CCE2FE287 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id AUE_N9TBZQ-s; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498782FE232; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) To: paulmck Message-ID: <1681186936.97276.1607538587190.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20201209181537.444048-1-mjeanson@efficios.com> References: <20201209181537.444048-1-mjeanson@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [167.114.26.124] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3980 (ZimbraWebClient - FF83 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3980) Thread-Topic: bump tests thread limit to 256 Thread-Index: 00UcESq6Kf2rE9fwpl025Y04w8xMTw== Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH urcu] fix: bump tests thread limit to 256 X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.31 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev Reply-To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: lttng-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" Hi Paul, Should I merge this temporary fix for liburcu tests, or should we go for dynamic allocation of the array right away instead ? Thanks, Mathieu ----- On Dec 9, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Michael Jeanson mjeanson@efficios.com wrote: > Machines with more than 128 CPUs are becomming more common, the proper > fix here would be to dynamically allocate the array which we will do, > but in the meantime bump the limit to 256 to fix the problem on a 160 > CPUs ppc64el system where this was reported. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Jeanson > Cc: Paul E. McKenney > Change-Id: Ib3cb5d8cb4515e6f626be33c2685fa38cb081782 > --- > tests/common/api.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/common/api.h b/tests/common/api.h > index 2b72ec5..b15e588 100644 > --- a/tests/common/api.h > +++ b/tests/common/api.h > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void spin_unlock(spinlock_t *sp) > > typedef pthread_t thread_id_t; > > -#define NR_THREADS 128 > +#define NR_THREADS 256 > > #define __THREAD_ID_MAP_EMPTY ((thread_id_t) 0) > #define __THREAD_ID_MAP_WAITING ((thread_id_t) 1) > -- > 2.29.2 -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev