Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754058AbaF0UAD (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:00:03 -0400 Received: from mailout1.w2.samsung.com ([211.189.100.11]:45352 "EHLO usmailout1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751530AbaF0T77 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:59:59 -0400 X-AuditID: cbfec37a-b7f206d000005572-69-53adcd3e19a6 Message-id: <53ADCD3B.3000209@samsung.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:59:55 -0600 From: Shuah Khan Reply-to: shuah.kh@samsung.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@chromium.org, michael@ellerman.id.au, fweisbec@gmail.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: selftests - create a separate hotplug target References: <1403814836-16964-1-git-send-email-shuah.kh@samsung.com> <20140626145106.83d8a15bfa07270b00e5d24b@linux-foundation.org> <53ADA58D.4070307@samsung.com> <20140627124552.d834ecd58c416c0a2d0dae02@linux-foundation.org> In-reply-to: <20140627124552.d834ecd58c416c0a2d0dae02@linux-foundation.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [105.144.134.209] X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t9hP127s2uDDba+lbSYs34Nm8WHplZm i5mvu5ksmhevZ7M4051rcXnXHDaLy5NWMjmwe8xuuMjisehlA4vHzll32T163rSwepyY8ZvF Y//cNewenzfJBbBHcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGUsO8dR8FKs4tilX6wNjKuEuhg5OSQETCQ2bXzE CmGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0hgGaPEvc1f2EASQgK9TBKL2jghEtsYJb61dYEleAW0JHpOf2LsYuTg YBFQlZi8qA4kzCagLvH59Q52iF45iaYlq5lBbFGBCIkDfc9YIVoFJX5MvscCYosI6Eqser6L GWQ+s8ABRokL33aBFQkLeEjsnfmFFWLxc0aJW0f/gnVwCnhLdDc0MYHYzALWEisnbWOEsOUl Nq95ywyxWVniz+VTTBCvKUtMbLzNMoFRZBaS5bOQtM9C0r6AkXkVo1hpcXJBcVJ6aoWhXnFi bnFpXrpecn7uJkZIbFXtYLzz1eYQowAHoxIP74e2tcFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHilVwCFeFMS K6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MCre4ltpLsKyKlD02uRXRSzpO+VCuD5wRMkuey38nemhwrvN 2x9trLf2Wnlzlon5zo+e9ZV1nWtZVFLLeyR38//SyrCUa3PvMO6qVHqeJPG7r8/Yfaqdp8Hk 3pLyqMnmlcukvr9YFWvdtXYrX/n7Za2lW99UnD/wf7EpW1xAVKvFcu7sNQ6blFiKMxINtZiL ihMBqAuwmosCAAA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/27/2014 01:45 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:10:37 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On 06/26/2014 03:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:33:56 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote: >>> >>>> On some systems, hotplug tests could hang forever waiting for cpu and >>>> memory to be ready to be offlined. A special hotplug target is created, >>>> which will help run non-hotplug tests and run hotplug tests as a special >>>> case. Individual hotplug tests can still be run as a special target >>>> targeted for a single subsystem. >>> >>> This is a bit sad. The general philosophy with selftests is that they >>> should run to completion even if the kernel/hardware which they are >>> testing isn't available - they should work it out for themselves. >>> >>> But that's obviously a problem with hotplug. And with networking or >>> anything else which needs external action. >>> >>> On the other hand, networking has loopback and the kernel supports cpu >>> hotplug simulation via procfs. So perhaps the cpu and memory hotplug >>> tests should be redone so they do the plug/unplug injection themselves, >>> so they can run without external intervention? >> >> Changing/running the tests in a safe mode (least possibility of hang) >> mode is another option. This way the tests are run in normal mode with >> reduced scope. Memory hotplug test has the ratio option and when I >> specified low ratio 1-5%, it completed in a few seconds. >> >> cpu-hotplug test will require changes. I am working on a change to >> offline a user specified # of cpus instead offlining all hotpluggable >> cpus and then onlining them again at the end of the test. >> >> When all selftests are run, safe mode hotplug tests will be run. >> >> Does this approach sound reasonable? > > I don't know really. You know more about this than I - what advantages > does the separate-make-target approach have over this approach? > Currently these tests run with full range - i.e try to offline all cpus that are hotpluggable and try to offline all memory that is hotpluggable. This results in hangs. Creating a separate target the way I did it in this patch excludes these tests all together. i.e when somebody runs: make -C tools/testing/selftests run_tests hotplug tests don't run. Instead, with a few changes, tests can be run with a reduced scope so a % of the memory gets offlined as opposed to all of it and the same thing with cpus. This way hotplug code gets tested as opposed to being excluded in a default test run case. However, if limited scope testing isn't useful, separate target is better until tests can be made safe to run without hangs. -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Senior Linux Kernel Developer - Open Source Group Samsung Research America(Silicon Valley) shuah.kh@samsung.com | (970) 672-0658 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/