The "random rhlist add/delete operations" actually wasn't very random, as all
cases tested the same bit. Since the later parts of this loop depend on the
first case execute this unconditionally, and then test on different bits for the
remaining tests. While at it only request as much random bits as are actually
used.
Signed-off-by: Rolf Eike Beer <[email protected]>
---
lib/test_rhashtable.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
[Resend with correct from address]
diff --git a/lib/test_rhashtable.c b/lib/test_rhashtable.c
index b358a74ed7ed..f2ba5787055a 100644
--- a/lib/test_rhashtable.c
+++ b/lib/test_rhashtable.c
@@ -369,18 +369,10 @@ static int __init test_rhltable(unsigned int entries)
pr_info("test %d random rhlist add/delete operations\n", entries);
for (j = 0; j < entries; j++) {
u32 i = prandom_u32_max(entries);
- u32 prand = get_random_u32();
+ u32 prand = prandom_u32_max(4);
cond_resched();
- if (prand == 0)
- prand = get_random_u32();
-
- if (prand & 1) {
- prand >>= 1;
- continue;
- }
-
err = rhltable_remove(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
if (test_bit(i, obj_in_table)) {
clear_bit(i, obj_in_table);
@@ -393,35 +385,29 @@ static int __init test_rhltable(unsigned int entries)
}
if (prand & 1) {
- prand >>= 1;
- continue;
- }
-
- err = rhltable_insert(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
- if (err == 0) {
- if (WARN(test_and_set_bit(i, obj_in_table), "succeeded to insert same object %d", i))
- continue;
- } else {
- if (WARN(!test_bit(i, obj_in_table), "failed to insert object %d", i))
- continue;
- }
-
- if (prand & 1) {
- prand >>= 1;
- continue;
+ err = rhltable_insert(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
+ if (err == 0) {
+ if (WARN(test_and_set_bit(i, obj_in_table), "succeeded to insert same object %d", i))
+ continue;
+ } else {
+ if (WARN(!test_bit(i, obj_in_table), "failed to insert object %d", i))
+ continue;
+ }
}
- i = prandom_u32_max(entries);
- if (test_bit(i, obj_in_table)) {
- err = rhltable_remove(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
- WARN(err, "cannot remove element at slot %d", i);
- if (err == 0)
- clear_bit(i, obj_in_table);
- } else {
- err = rhltable_insert(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
- WARN(err, "failed to insert object %d", i);
- if (err == 0)
- set_bit(i, obj_in_table);
+ if (prand & 2) {
+ i = prandom_u32_max(entries);
+ if (test_bit(i, obj_in_table)) {
+ err = rhltable_remove(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
+ WARN(err, "cannot remove element at slot %d", i);
+ if (err == 0)
+ clear_bit(i, obj_in_table);
+ } else {
+ err = rhltable_insert(&rhlt, &rhl_test_objects[i].list_node, test_rht_params);
+ WARN(err, "failed to insert object %d", i);
+ if (err == 0)
+ set_bit(i, obj_in_table);
+ }
}
}
--
2.35.3
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 9:47 AM Rolf Eike Beer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The "random rhlist add/delete operations" actually wasn't very random, as all
> cases tested the same bit. Since the later parts of this loop depend on the
> first case execute this unconditionally, and then test on different bits for the
> remaining tests. While at it only request as much random bits as are actually
> used.
Seems reasonable to me. If it's okay with Thomas, who you CC'd, I'd
like to take this through my random tree, as that'll prevent it from
conflicting with a series I have out currently:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Jason
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 03:47:03PM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> The "random rhlist add/delete operations" actually wasn't very random, as all
> cases tested the same bit. Since the later parts of this loop depend on the
> first case execute this unconditionally, and then test on different bits for the
> remaining tests. While at it only request as much random bits as are actually
> used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rolf Eike Beer <[email protected]>
> ---
> lib/test_rhashtable.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
--
Email: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 09:52:56PM -0400, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Seems reasonable to me. If it's okay with Thomas, who you CC'd, I'd
> like to take this through my random tree, as that'll prevent it from
> conflicting with a series I have out currently:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Sure, this code rarely changes so it should be fine to go through
your tree.
Thanks,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (master)
by David S. Miller <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:47:03 +0200 you wrote:
> The "random rhlist add/delete operations" actually wasn't very random, as all
> cases tested the same bit. Since the later parts of this loop depend on the
> first case execute this unconditionally, and then test on different bits for the
> remaining tests. While at it only request as much random bits as are actually
> used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rolf Eike Beer <[email protected]>
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [Resend] rhashtable: make test actually random
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/c5f0a1728874
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html