From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Rolf Peukert <rolf.peukert@imms.de>
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Strange results from Locking API testsuite on ARM
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:39:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140124133913.GD10264@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52E161B7.6000002@imms.de>
* Rolf Peukert | 2014-01-23 19:38:47 [+0100]:
>Hello,
Hi Rolf,
>
>If I configure the kernel for "Basic RT" or less, all 218 testcases
>pass. If I configure "Full RT", but don't select "prove locking
Yes. I think in basic mode we use the "vanila" locking.
>correctness", the result is the usual "135 out of 218 testcases failed,
>as expected."
>
>This phenomenon happens with the previous kernel too (at least, haven't
>checked older versions yet).
>
>I'm not sure, is the testsuite meant to work in full RT at all?
>Did I miss some important kernel config options?
No you are fine. From a quick look on the v3.12 x86 output we disabled
the failed tests from your second part of the output.
The first few with the rlock fail because it works a little different on
-RT and thus leading to the errors. So the testsuite was never updated
to match the behavior on -RT in v3.2 and it still does not match 100% on
current v3.12.
My current output is:
| ------------------------
| | Locking API testsuite:
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| A-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| A-B-B-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| A-B-B-C-C-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| A-B-C-A-B-C deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| A-B-B-C-C-D-D-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| A-B-C-D-B-D-D-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| A-B-C-D-B-C-D-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
| double unlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok |FAILED|
| initialize held: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
| bad unlock order: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| recursive read-lock: | ok | |FAILED|
| recursive read-lock #2: |FAILED| | ok |
| mixed read-write-lock: | ok | | ok |
| mixed write-read-lock: | ok | | ok |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| hard-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/12: ok |
| hard-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/21: ok |
| hard-safe-A + irqs-on/12: ok |
| hard-safe-A + irqs-on/21: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/123: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/132: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/213: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/231: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/312: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/321: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/123: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/132: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/213: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/231: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/312: ok |
| hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/321: ok |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Wound/wait tests |
| ---------------------
| ww api failures: ok | ok | ok |
| ww contexts mixing: ok | ok |
| finishing ww context: ok | ok | ok | ok |
| locking mismatches: ok | ok | ok |
| EDEADLK handling: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
| spinlock nest unlocked: ok |
| -----------------------------------------------------
| |block | try |context|
| -----------------------------------------------------
| context: ok | ok | ok |
| try: ok | ok | ok |
| block: ok | ok | ok |
| spinlock: ok | ok | ok |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------
| BUG: 11 unexpected failures (out of 119) - debugging disabled! |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------
and all fails here are due to -RT specific changes (which I verified
while I added the Wound/wait part).
>Thanks,
>Rolf
Sebastian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-24 13:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-23 18:38 Strange results from Locking API testsuite on ARM Rolf Peukert
2014-01-24 13:39 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
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=20140124133913.GD10264@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rolf.peukert@imms.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).