From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:11:48 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v3] drivers: psci: PSCI checker module
In-Reply-To: <20161026173534.GC16248@red-moon>
References: <20161020145115.6326-1-kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
 <20161025154535.GA3107@red-moon>
 <20161025183436.GF3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20161026131752.GA15478@red-moon>
 <20161026151858.GQ3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20161026171006.GA16248@red-moon>
 <20161026172252.GV3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20161026173534.GC16248@red-moon>
Message-ID: <20161026181148.GW3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 06:35:34PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:22:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 06:10:06PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > Thanks a lot for your feedback, thoughts appreciated.
> > 
> > Let me ask the question more directly.
> > 
> > Why on earth are we trying to run these tests concurrently?
> 
> We must prevent that, no question about that, that's why I started
> this discussion. It is not fine to enable this checker and the
> RCU/LOCK torture hotplug tests at the same time.
> 
> > After all, if we just run one at a time in isolation, there is no
> > problem.
> 
> Fine by me, it was to understand if the current assumptions we made
> are correct and they are definitely not. If we enable the PSCI checker
> we must disable the torture rcu/lock hotplug tests either statically or
> dynamically.

What rcutorture, locktorture, and rcuperf do is to invoke
torture_init_begin(), which returns false if one of these tests
is already running.

Perhaps we should extract this torture-test-exclusion and require
than conflicting torture tests invoke it?

							Thanx, Paul