From: Rishikesh K Rajak <risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: naresh kamboju <naresh.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: ltp-list <ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization required before release the lock: sem_post/8-1.c
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:20:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100302085046.GA27023@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5a7b3811002250545x3d5288cfqd114d3bcd79581f2@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 07:15:42PM +0530, naresh kamboju wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have found abnormal behavior of sem_post/8-1.c test case under posix.
> This test case passes in some times and failed in many times :-(
>
> After my investigation found synchronization is missing between the
> child processes.
> Made a patch to fix this issue.
>
> Patch includes
> 1. Reverting back changes made by mreed on Sep 25 2006. Making sure
> child has been waiting for the lock (below Refs).
> 2. using sleep in while loop is not a good idea, so sleep is removed
> from while loop
> 3. For the synchronization I have added sleep before releasing the lock.
>
>
> After applying this patch I have tested this test case 1000 times continuously.
> All the times test case reported as Test Pass :-)
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Naresh Kamboju < naresh.kernel@gmail.com >
Looks good to me though i needed few clarification below.
Acked-By: Rishikesh K Rajak <risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/sem_post/8-1.c
> | 15 8 + 7 - 0 !
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/sem_post/8-1.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/sem_post/8-1.c
> +++ b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/sem_post/8-1.c
> @@ -161,7 +161,6 @@ int main()
> }
> fprintf(stderr, "P: child_1:%d forked\n", c_1);
>
> - sleep(1);
> c_2 = fork();
> if (c_2 == 0)
> {
> @@ -176,13 +175,13 @@ int main()
> }
> fprintf(stderr, "P: child_2: %d forked\n", c_2);
>
> + /* Step 3 Implementation */
> /* Make sure the two children has been waiting */
> - /*do {
> - sleep(1);
I feel before getting semaphore value, we need to sync first so here
sleep is require,though your point is valid that there is no use of
using sleep inside while loop.
> + do {
> sem_getvalue(sem_1, &val);
> //printf("val = %d\n", val);
> } while (val != 1);
> - */
> +
> c_3 = fork();
> if (c_3 == 0)
> {
> @@ -191,13 +190,15 @@ int main()
> }
> fprintf(stderr, "P: child_3: %d forked\n", c_3);
>
> + /* Step 3 Implementation */
> /* Make sure child 3 has been waiting for the lock */
> - /*do {
> - sleep(1);
> + do {
> sem_getvalue(sem_1, &val);
> //printf("val = %d\n", val);
> } while (val != 0);
> - */
> +
> + /* Synchronization required before release the lock */
> + sleep(1);
> /* Ok, let's release the lock */
> fprintf(stderr, "P: release lock\n");
> sem_post(sem);
>
>
> Test script to test 1000 times:
> /*****************************************************/
> #!/bin/sh
>
> for (( i = 0 ; i < 1000; i++ ))
>
> do
>
> ./8-1.test >> /tmp/sem-post-8-1.log
> done
> /*****************************************************/
>
> Refs:
> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ltp/ltp/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/sem_post/8-1.c?view=log
>
> Please review this patch and let me know if you have any issues.
>
> Best regards
> Naresh Kamboju
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
--
Thanks & Regards
Rishi
LTP Maintainer
IBM, LTC, Bangalore
Please join IRC #ltp @ irc.freenode.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-02 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-25 13:45 [PATCH] Synchronization required before release the lock: sem_post/8-1.c naresh kamboju
2010-03-02 8:50 ` Rishikesh K Rajak [this message]
2010-03-02 15:08 ` [LTP] " naresh kamboju
[not found] ` <20100303045624.GB10185@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-03-03 6:00 ` naresh kamboju
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=20100302085046.GA27023@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=naresh.kernel@gmail.com \
/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