From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 03:39:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] fzsync: don't compare spins_avg (float) against 1
 (int)
In-Reply-To: <87woenky0b.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz>
References: <2ded10ab8d989ba7ee0cc1e9f1ac28acdf14c947.1567606698.git.jstancek@redhat.com>
 <87woenky0b.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz>
Message-ID: <1820874262.10134964.1567669148944.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it


----- Original Message -----
> Hello,
> 
> Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > tst_fzsync_pair.spins is increased at least by one on every iteration.
> > If during all calibration loops, both A and B manage to complete at
> > nearly same time, then spins is increased only by one.
> >
> > spins_avg starts as 0, and tst_exp_moving_avg() will move it closer
> > and closer to 1, but it will never be 1:
> >         float f = 0; int i;
> >         for (i = 0; i < 4096; i++)
> >                 f = tst_exp_moving_avg(0.25f, 1, f);
> >         printf("%.15f %d\n", f, f >= 1);
> > 	$ 0.999999880790710 0
> >
> > which on rare occasion can cause: "Can't calculate random delay".
> 
> I'm surprised that you have seen this. Out of interest, does this happen
> on a particular setup, or just randomly?

It happens very rarely on power9 lpar running fedora 30 and cve-2017-2671,
where there's only single syscall in fuzzing section.

It takes couple hours to reproduce on demand.

> 
> >
> > Compare against float slightly smaller than 1.
> > Also print stats one more time when we hit the warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  include/tst_fuzzy_sync.h | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/tst_fuzzy_sync.h b/include/tst_fuzzy_sync.h
> > index de0402c9bbe9..2c0389c5d63e 100644
> > --- a/include/tst_fuzzy_sync.h
> > +++ b/include/tst_fuzzy_sync.h
> > @@ -73,6 +73,8 @@
> >  /* how much of exec time is sampling allowed to take */
> >  #define SAMPLING_SLICE 0.5f
> >
> > +#define EPSILON 0.999f
> > +
> >  /** Some statistics for a variable */
> >  struct tst_fzsync_stat {
> >  	float avg;
> > @@ -477,7 +479,7 @@ static void tst_fzsync_pair_update(struct
> > tst_fzsync_pair *pair)
> >  			tst_res(TINFO, "Minimum sampling period ended");
> >  			tst_fzsync_pair_info(pair);
> >  		}
> > -	} else if (fabsf(pair->diff_ab.avg) >= 1 && pair->spins_avg.avg >= 1) {
> > +	} else if (fabsf(pair->diff_ab.avg) > EPSILON && pair->spins_avg.avg >
> > EPSILON) {
> >  		per_spin_time = fabsf(pair->diff_ab.avg) / pair->spins_avg.avg;
> 
> I suppose you could also use MAX(pair->spins_avg.avg, 1f) and drop the
> check. It might even be OK to only check that it is greater than
> zero. I'm not sure if the number of delay spins will be sane either way,
> but it probably can't do any harm.

I'll send v2.

Thanks,
Jan

> 
> >  		time_delay = drand48() * (pair->diff_sa.avg + pair->diff_sb.avg)
> >  			- pair->diff_sb.avg;
> > @@ -495,6 +497,7 @@ static void tst_fzsync_pair_update(struct
> > tst_fzsync_pair *pair)
> >  		}
> >  	} else if (!pair->sampling) {
> >  		tst_res(TWARN, "Can't calculate random delay");
> > +		tst_fzsync_pair_info(pair);
> >  		pair->sampling = -1;
> >  	}
> 
> 
> --
> Thank you,
> Richard.
>