From: Rolf Peukert <rolf.peukert@imms.de>
To: <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Strange results from Locking API testsuite on ARM
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:38:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E161B7.6000002@imms.de> (raw)
Hello,
on our ARM-Cortex-A8-based board (using a TI AM3505 Sitara CPU) running
3.2.54-rt77, the Locking API testsuite displays 87 unexpected failures.
The pattern in the output looks interesting, but I'm not sure what it means:
> [ 0.000000] | Locking API testsuite:
> [ 0.000000] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] A-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] A-B-B-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] A-B-B-C-C-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] A-B-C-A-B-C deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] A-B-B-C-C-D-D-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] A-B-C-D-B-D-D-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] A-B-C-D-B-C-D-A deadlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] double unlock: ok | ok |FAILED| ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] initialize held: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] bad unlock order: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] recursive read-lock: | ok | |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] recursive read-lock #2: |FAILED| | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed read-write-lock: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed write-read-lock: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] hard-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/12: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/12:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/21: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/21:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] sirq-safe-A => hirqs-on/12:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] sirq-safe-A => hirqs-on/21:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + irqs-on/12: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + irqs-on/12:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + irqs-on/21: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + irqs-on/21:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/123: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/123:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/132: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/132:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/213: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/213:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/231: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/231:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/312: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/312:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/321: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #1/321:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/123: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/123:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/132: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/132:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/213: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/213:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/231: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/231:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/312: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/312:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/321: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-safe-A + unsafe-B #2/321:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq lock-inversion/123: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq lock-inversion/123:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq lock-inversion/132: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq lock-inversion/132:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq lock-inversion/213: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq lock-inversion/213:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq lock-inversion/231: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq lock-inversion/231:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq lock-inversion/312: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq lock-inversion/312:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq lock-inversion/321: ok | ok |FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq lock-inversion/321:FAILED|FAILED| ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq read-recursion/123:FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq read-recursion/123: ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq read-recursion/132:FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq read-recursion/132: ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq read-recursion/213:FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq read-recursion/213: ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq read-recursion/231:FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq read-recursion/231: ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq read-recursion/312:FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq read-recursion/312: ok |
> [ 0.000000] hard-irq read-recursion/321:FAILED|
> [ 0.000000] soft-irq read-recursion/321: ok |
> [ 0.000000] -----------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] BUG: 87 unexpected failures (out of 218) - debugging disabled! |
Apparently the RT capabilites are not affected.
Here is a link to the full startup log, http://pastebin.com/bBmLwebD
and the kernel configuration used, http://pastebin.com/nYHyBjqT
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
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?
Thanks,
Rolf
next reply other threads:[~2014-01-23 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-23 18:38 Rolf Peukert [this message]
2014-01-24 13:39 ` Strange results from Locking API testsuite on ARM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=52E161B7.6000002@imms.de \
--to=rolf.peukert@imms.de \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).