From: xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] shmget03: fix test when some shm segments already exist
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 04:30:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60E52E00.8020105@fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2fKXJmgKAr4JXW5y+dcgEwL1taobXLY7OdTWBzLXGVOYg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Li
> Hi Xu,
>
> xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com <mailto:xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com <mailto:xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>> wrote:
>
> If we use this old format, then we can not ensure whether we trigger
> the
> ENOSPC errer correctly when reaching the expected nums.
>
> So to avoid the existed memory segments error, I think we should alter
> get_used_queus api to count the existed memory segments by adding a
> file argument.
>
>
> Just as Alex pointed, if there are some resources be freedafter invoking
> get_used_queus, then the value of existed_cntwill be imprecise, how do
> you think that affects the test result?
We can move this count api and the create phase into verify* function,
but still exist the chance to free resource after invoking get_used_queues.
We can't avoid it because /proc/sys/kernel/shmmni is designed for all
user instead of the calling process.
I think it is common in ltp because user also can set a different value
after we use ltp api to set proc value.
But if we only use for loop to trigger the ENOSPC error, it goes against
the test's aim(see old shmget03.c, it also does the same thing as I do,
it doesn't trigger error because it uses a big value than default 4096).
Since this case only wastes a little time when run, I don't think we
should avoid rare race to give up to test the ENOSPC error when reaching
the expected num.
Also, Let's listen advise from other maintainers.
@Cyril,Petr
Best Regards
Yang Xu
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Li Wang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-07 4:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-06 10:57 [LTP] [PATCH] shmget03: fix test when some shm segments already exist Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-06 12:49 ` Li Wang
2021-07-06 13:43 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-06 14:18 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-07 1:26 ` Li Wang
2021-07-07 1:59 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-07 14:12 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-08 11:02 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-08 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-12 2:31 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-12 7:46 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 8:41 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-12 8:46 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-14 9:33 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-14 10:00 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-14 10:17 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-07 1:50 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-07 2:21 ` Li Wang
2021-07-07 4:30 ` xuyang2018.jy [this message]
2021-07-08 2:24 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-08 8:27 ` Li Wang
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=60E52E00.8020105@fujitsu.com \
--to=xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.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