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 840B8C4332F for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734E43CD24A for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:13:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC033C2306 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:13:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EBDA2005E7 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:13:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from canpemm500006.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4N9mnB3Ys4zJnjM for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 19:10:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.229) by canpemm500006.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 19:13:28 +0800 Received: from canpemm500005.china.huawei.com ([7.192.104.229]) by canpemm500005.china.huawei.com ([7.192.104.229]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 19:13:28 +0800 To: "rpalethorpe@suse.de" Thread-Topic: Re[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/sched_setscheduler04: new test for sched_setscheduler() Thread-Index: Adj4Gho1BVH8bk7tQ6qY/MBojcV06w== Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:13:28 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.67.110.209] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] Re [PATCH] syscalls/sched_setscheduler04: new test for sched_setscheduler() 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: , From: zhaogongyi via ltp Reply-To: zhaogongyi 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! > > >> > +static void test_sched_setscheduler02(void) { > >> > + pthread_t tid; > >> > + > >> > + SAFE_PTHREAD_CREATE(&tid, NULL, thread_func, NULL); > >> > + SAFE_PTHREAD_JOIN(tid, NULL); > >> > +} > >> > + > >> > + > >> > +static void run(void) > >> > +{ > >> > + sched_prio = sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_POLICY); > >> > >> This can go in the setup function. > > > > If move it to setup function, we run the test with option "-I 200", it > > will fail. > > Why? sched_prio is a global variable, and it increase in any running loop, thus it will be out of range and report: sched_setscheduler04.c:52: TPASS: param.sched_priority == sched_prio (99) sched_setscheduler04.c:53: TPASS: new_policy == EXP_POLICY (1) sched_setscheduler04.c:34: TINFO: Setting of tid: 70774 sched_setscheduler04.c:40: TBROK: sched_setscheduler(70774, 1, ...) failed: EINVAL (22) Summary: passed 196 failed 0 broken 1 skipped 0 warnings 0 > > > >> > >> > + > >> > + test_sched_setscheduler01(); > >> > + test_sched_setscheduler02(); > >> > >> This should be replaced with .tcnt = 2 and .test. or else just merge > >> them into run. > > > > Agree, I will fix it int the next version. > > > >> > >> > +} > >> > + > >> > +static struct tst_test test = { > >> > + .test_all = run, > >> > >> We probably need to ensure CAP_SYS_NICE. Full details are in 'man 7 > >> sched' > >> > >> i.e. .caps = (struct tst_cap[]) { > >> TST_CAP(TST_CAP_REQ, CAP_SYS_NICE), > >> null > >> } > >> > > > > In this testcase, we just increase the priority, should we add the checking > of capability? > > For the test to run we need CAP_SYS_NICE. If you want to test that the > priority can only be set when CAP_SYS_NICE is available, then that is a > seperate test in my opinion. Anybody can call nice() to increase the priority, i have test it with normal user and passed. And if decrease the priority, the test will report EPERM when running with normal user. Regards, Gongyi -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp