From: Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@samsung.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
michael@ellerman.id.au, fweisbec@gmail.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: selftests - create a separate hotplug target
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:59:55 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53ADCD3B.3000209@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140627124552.d834ecd58c416c0a2d0dae02@linux-foundation.org>
On 06/27/2014 01:45 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:10:37 -0600 Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2014 03:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:33:56 -0600 Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@samsung.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On some systems, hotplug tests could hang forever waiting for cpu and
>>>> memory to be ready to be offlined. A special hotplug target is created,
>>>> which will help run non-hotplug tests and run hotplug tests as a special
>>>> case. Individual hotplug tests can still be run as a special target
>>>> targeted for a single subsystem.
>>>
>>> This is a bit sad. The general philosophy with selftests is that they
>>> should run to completion even if the kernel/hardware which they are
>>> testing isn't available - they should work it out for themselves.
>>>
>>> But that's obviously a problem with hotplug. And with networking or
>>> anything else which needs external action.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, networking has loopback and the kernel supports cpu
>>> hotplug simulation via procfs. So perhaps the cpu and memory hotplug
>>> tests should be redone so they do the plug/unplug injection themselves,
>>> so they can run without external intervention?
>>
>> Changing/running the tests in a safe mode (least possibility of hang)
>> mode is another option. This way the tests are run in normal mode with
>> reduced scope. Memory hotplug test has the ratio option and when I
>> specified low ratio 1-5%, it completed in a few seconds.
>>
>> cpu-hotplug test will require changes. I am working on a change to
>> offline a user specified # of cpus instead offlining all hotpluggable
>> cpus and then onlining them again at the end of the test.
>>
>> When all selftests are run, safe mode hotplug tests will be run.
>>
>> Does this approach sound reasonable?
>
> I don't know really. You know more about this than I - what advantages
> does the separate-make-target approach have over this approach?
>
Currently these tests run with full range - i.e try to offline
all cpus that are hotpluggable and try to offline all memory
that is hotpluggable. This results in hangs.
Creating a separate target the way I did it in this patch excludes these
tests all together. i.e when somebody runs:
make -C tools/testing/selftests run_tests
hotplug tests don't run.
Instead, with a few changes, tests can be run with a reduced scope so
a % of the memory gets offlined as opposed to all of it and the same
thing with cpus. This way hotplug code gets tested as opposed to
being excluded in a default test run case.
However, if limited scope testing isn't useful, separate target is
better until tests can be made safe to run without hangs.
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Senior Linux Kernel Developer - Open Source Group
Samsung Research America(Silicon Valley)
shuah.kh@samsung.com | (970) 672-0658
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-27 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-26 20:33 [PATCH] tools: selftests - create a separate hotplug target Shuah Khan
2014-06-26 21:51 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-27 17:10 ` Shuah Khan
2014-06-27 19:45 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-27 19:59 ` Shuah Khan [this message]
2014-06-27 20:04 ` Andrew Morton
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=53ADCD3B.3000209@samsung.com \
--to=shuah.kh@samsung.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
/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