From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@linux.dev>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-cgroup/for-7.3] selftests/cgroup: Fix minor defects in test_cpuset
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:01:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <al4tyJ2lRMj32Wpn@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260717191814.989215-1-longman@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1879 bytes --]
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 03:18:14PM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> With commit 98149f542530 ("selftests/cgroup: Add test for cpuset affinity
> on controller disable"), sashiko [1] had report 3 different issues with
> the new test_cpuset_affinity_on_controller_disable() test.
>
> 1) `cpu_set_equal` iterates over mask bytes instead of bits, ignoring
> CPUs >= 8.
Inline comment
> 2) Thread synchronization logic allows the main thread to read
> uninitialized stack memory, causing test flakiness.
Hm, I cannot see it (alhtough I don't see it through), what was the
stack memory?
(test_phase is static, then re-initalized)
> 3) Test fails instead of skipping gracefully on uniprocessor systems
> or when CPU 1 is unavailable.
Interesting catch.
>
> Fix the reported issues by:
> 1) Iterates over the bit size of the mask.
> 2) Test the new ready flag for each thread to end the wait
> on the condoitional variable and eliminate the now unneeded
> AFFINITY_THREAD_A_READY and AFFINITY_THREADS_READY test phases.
But the symmetric synchronization with counter is easier to reason
about.
> 3) Return KSFT_SKIP on "cpuset.cpus" setting failure.
It'd be better to have same style with test_cpuset_prs.sh, i.e. a guard
at the beginning requesting a minimal number of CPUs. Next time...
> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int cpu_set_equal(cpu_set_t *dst, unsigned long mask)
> CPU_ZERO(&expected);
> assert(sizeof(mask) < CPU_SETSIZE);
>
> - for (int cpu = 0; cpu < sizeof(mask); ++cpu)
> + for (int cpu = 0; cpu < sizeof(mask) * 8; ++cpu)
> if ((1UL << cpu) & mask)
> CPU_SET(cpu, &expected);
Oh, that was my braino in how masks are stored.
Thanks for correcting me!
It should also extend the assert accordingly:
assert(sizeof(mask) * 8 < CPU_SETSIZE);
Michal
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 265 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-20 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 19:18 [PATCH-cgroup/for-7.3] selftests/cgroup: Fix minor defects in test_cpuset Waiman Long
2026-07-17 22:32 ` Tejun Heo
2026-07-17 22:53 ` Waiman Long
2026-07-20 15:01 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2026-07-20 15:40 ` Waiman Long
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=al4tyJ2lRMj32Wpn@localhost.localdomain \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=ridong.chen@linux.dev \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox