From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13C7C4828D for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966763CF61C for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:21:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A207B3C044A for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:21:06 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-4.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB841000D39 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:21:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C5822154; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:21:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1707153662; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=KMJRHpQhJZYdncZEKk7qkpvWJNofb+Ut6qQfqFDesm4=; b=k79fsa9sJZFS/hi14B6TXGNkssSuddet1NxJAUQHXxrPQIxMugXvglZ6xanh3p/jOHjgiI QWtVoS5UF5DdFIcMTiTbhKXgZgkN/+FdkjrZ37M5g+wKmlQYMnsJAJOtL813IADxpggtzM Qxa5isfB4d/pkKjdlvUV/nZzi51IcaY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1707153662; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=KMJRHpQhJZYdncZEKk7qkpvWJNofb+Ut6qQfqFDesm4=; b=uAaC/mRHikpSxqopKrPK5ghIg3BtkjKUG6BcGeVSEfVL/yuzF0xngw2EKL0aUBSdWxefOY ltHvSVo81n/CF5Ag== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1707153662; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=KMJRHpQhJZYdncZEKk7qkpvWJNofb+Ut6qQfqFDesm4=; b=k79fsa9sJZFS/hi14B6TXGNkssSuddet1NxJAUQHXxrPQIxMugXvglZ6xanh3p/jOHjgiI QWtVoS5UF5DdFIcMTiTbhKXgZgkN/+FdkjrZ37M5g+wKmlQYMnsJAJOtL813IADxpggtzM Qxa5isfB4d/pkKjdlvUV/nZzi51IcaY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1707153662; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=KMJRHpQhJZYdncZEKk7qkpvWJNofb+Ut6qQfqFDesm4=; b=uAaC/mRHikpSxqopKrPK5ghIg3BtkjKUG6BcGeVSEfVL/yuzF0xngw2EKL0aUBSdWxefOY ltHvSVo81n/CF5Ag== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 746C3132DD; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([10.150.64.162]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id OK4oF/4YwWWoHgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 05 Feb 2024 17:21:02 +0000 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:21:00 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: <20240205172100.GA218023@pevik> References: <534e6d05-fc91-43e4-b384-b7a43125961d@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <534e6d05-fc91-43e4-b384-b7a43125961d@suse.com> X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=k79fsa9s; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b="uAaC/mRH" X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.71 / 50.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:dkim]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C7C5822154 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] msgstress SysV IPC testing suite X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: "ltp@lists.linux.it" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi, > Hi all, > I was taking a look msgstress testing suite that is supposed to stress the > kernel SysV IPC. > It's a well known testing suite that used to randomly stuck or fail, due to > the poorly written code. > I'm about to refactor its code, but I noticed that all 4 tests inside it > (msgstress01-04) are basically implementing the same concept, if not the > same code that looks copy-pasted. > We basically have 2 or more processes reading/writing messages into the SysV > IPC at the same time. > If all messages are correctly sent and received, the test passes. The only > difference is if these processes are spawned inside children or not. > So I have a quite obvious observation: our main goal is to stress the SysV > IPC, so we can trigger a bug and it doesn't matter if this is done inside > children or not. I hope so. It also looks to me, that all 4 tests do very similar thing. Also test docs claims that msgstress03.c is msgstress01.c but reads /proc/sys/kernel/msgmni, similarly msgstress04.c is msgstress02.c but reads /proc/sys/kernel/msgmni. But I don't see that msgstress0[34].c would read /proc/sys/kernel/msgmni. msgget03.c (already rewritten to new API) is the only test which reads it via .save_restore. I suppose get_used_msgqueues() (in libs/libltpipc/libipc.c) can still be kept in the old API and converted after all files are converted. But I would consider using /proc/sysvipc/msg instead of "ipcs -q". Thanks for looking this! Kind regards, Petr > I'm planning to remove all those tests and to write a new one following the > main concept, but without the actual redundancy. What do you think? > Regards, > Andrea Cervesato -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp