From: Leo Liang <ycliang@andestech.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] cgroup/cgroup_regression_test: Fix umount failure
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:27:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210706032748.GA16346@andestech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YNnJ18Q+cqb8zM5K@yuki>
Hi,
Sorry for the late response and thanks for all the replies and suggestions.
I am running on a rather new RISC-V platform (Andes/AE350) and with 5.4.0 off-tree kernel.
The umount in cgroup_regression_test mostly failed at test_2 and test_3,
so it would show FAIL result (mount not successfully executed) at test_3 and test_5 (test_4 shows TCONF on my platform).
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 03:08:39PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > I would like a short comment close to the syncs. When I converted
> > cpuset_regression_test.sh, I would have removed the sync in there, if
> > there wouldn't have been any comment.
> > Most of the time syncs are not required and just added by paranoid
> > developers, but if there is a real reason, I think it should be stated
> > in a comment.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me, can we please add a comment there?
Hi Cyril and Joerg,
Sounds reasonable to me as well,
will send a v2 patch with comment.
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
> Agree with this. Are all these sync really needed? Or just some?
Hi Petr,
I've written a script containing only the following sequence
" mount 'cgroup mntpoint' "
" mkdir 'under cgroup mntpoint' "
" rmdir 'under cgroup mntpoint' "
" umount 'cgroup mntpoint' "
" mount 'cgroup mntpoint' "
and it could trigger the fail.
But only bumped into the umount fail when doing test_2 and test_3 in the cgroup_regression_test.
I am adding syncs in every sub-tests that execute the above sequence now.
Should them be added only at the places where umount failure did occur ?
> Kind regards,
> Petr
> IMO, Even we call sync, this umount may fail because sync ensures
> nothing. Why not use tst_umount?
Hi Yang,
I think this might be a timing issue and a little delay could fix this problem. (e.g. 'sleep 1')
Using 'sync' here IMHO would be more descriptive and has a semantic meaning.
Speaking of tst_umount, do you mean to convert this test to C code ?
> Best Regards
> Yang Xu
Best regards,
Leo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-06 3:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-28 3:30 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] cgroup/cgroup_regression_test: Fix umount failure Leo Liang
2021-06-28 7:24 ` Richard Palethorpe
2021-06-28 7:36 ` Joerg Vehlow
2021-06-28 8:49 ` Petr Vorel
2021-06-28 13:08 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-06 3:27 ` Leo Liang [this message]
2021-07-06 5:45 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-12 7:28 ` Leo Liang
2021-06-29 7:01 ` xuyang2018.jy
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=20210706032748.GA16346@andestech.com \
--to=ycliang@andestech.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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