[LTP] [PATCH] madvise06: wait a bit after madvise() call

[Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>]

Hi Jan,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Jan Stancek wrote:
> 
> Some other obsverations that are not addressed by this patch:
>  Testcase assumes that swap is enabled.
>  Testcase assumes that there is enough swap.
>  Testcase doesn't check buf[0] is swapped before it calls madvise().

It's easy to check swap enabled, but hard to verify one page is swapped. :(

> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise06.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise06.c
> index 6b081fddf5eb..1b0f58cb319d 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise06.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise06.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ static void test_advice_willneed(void)
>  	char *dst[100];
>  	int page_fault_num_1;
>  	int page_fault_num_2;
> +	const int pages_to_check = 50;
>  
>  	/* allocate source memory (1gb only) */
>  	src = safe_mmap(null, 1 * gb_sz, prot_read | prot_write,
> @@ -97,18 +98,23 @@ static void test_advice_willneed(void)
>  	tst_res(tinfo, "pagefault(no madvice): %d", get_page_fault_num());
>  
>  	/* Do madvice() to dst[0] */
> -	TEST(madvise(dst[0], pg_sz, MADV_WILLNEED));
> +	TEST(madvise(dst[0], pages_to_check * pg_sz, MADV_WILLNEED));
>  	if (TEST_RETURN == -1)
>  		tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "madvise failed");
>  
> -	page_fault_num_1 = get_page_fault_num();
> -	tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / no mem access): %d",
> -			page_fault_num_1);
> -
> -	*dst[0] = 'a';
> -	page_fault_num_2 = get_page_fault_num();
> -	tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / mem access): %d",
> -			page_fault_num_2);

8<---------snip----------------
> +	i = 0;
> +	do {
> +		i++;
> +		usleep(100000);
> +
> +		page_fault_num_1 = get_page_fault_num();
> +		tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / no mem access): %d",
> +				page_fault_num_1);
> +		dst[0][i * pg_sz] = 'a';
> +		page_fault_num_2 = get_page_fault_num();
> +		tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / mem access): %d",
> +				page_fault_num_2);
> +	} while (page_fault_num_1 != page_fault_num_2 && i < pages_to_check);
8<-------------------------------

Agree! this method could aviod a wrong diagnosis.

But one question is that why involved the 'pages_to_check' as a constant?
why not changes like this:

int pages_to_check = 50;
...

while (pages_to_check > 0 && pages_to_check--) {
	page_fault_num_1 = get_page_fault_num();
	tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / no mem access): %d",
			page_fault_num_1);
	dst[0][pages_to_check * pg_sz]  =  'a';
	page_fault_num_2 = get_page_fault_num();
	tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / mem access): %d",
			page_fault_num_2);

	if(page_fault_num_1 == page_fault_num_2)
		break;

	usleep(100000);
}


One more word, there(above two changes) still only one chance to verify
page fault numbers equality, because if "page_fault_num_1 != page_fault_num_2"
it will keep looping until get the last page be checked. so that a bad
situation, it will usleep(100000) * 50 at most.

In other words, the last page determines the test result though the bug
has been detected by previous pages.

Li Wang