Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753054AbdL1Biz (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:38:55 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44592 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752639AbdL1Bix (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:38:53 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3EE692187C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=mhiramat@kernel.org Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 10:38:49 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Josef Bacik , , , , , , , , , , , Josef Bacik , Akinobu Mita Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] error-injection: Support fault injection framework Message-Id: <20171228103849.9be1a4507298b280b9df9c20@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <87e5e909-593d-7fd6-c7bb-714c1e3022a0@fb.com> References: <151427438796.32561.4235654585430455286.stgit@devbox> <151427450538.32561.2776225740675148782.stgit@devbox> <20171227021255.sahkcpgyzohl5brs@ast-mbp> <20171227170910.5ac1074bc86341f194130119@kernel.org> <87e5e909-593d-7fd6-c7bb-714c1e3022a0@fb.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3177 Lines: 75 On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:49:46 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 12/27/17 12:09 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:12:56 -0800 > > Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 04:48:25PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >>> Support in-kernel fault-injection framework via debugfs. > >>> This allows you to inject a conditional error to specified > >>> function using debugfs interfaces. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt | 5 + > >>> kernel/Makefile | 1 > >>> kernel/fail_function.c | 169 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> lib/Kconfig.debug | 10 + > >>> 4 files changed, 185 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 kernel/fail_function.c > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt b/Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt > >>> index 918972babcd8..6243a588dd71 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt > >>> +++ b/Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt > >>> @@ -30,6 +30,11 @@ o fail_mmc_request > >>> injects MMC data errors on devices permitted by setting > >>> debugfs entries under /sys/kernel/debug/mmc0/fail_mmc_request > >>> > >>> +o fail_function > >>> + > >>> + injects error return on specific functions by setting debugfs entries > >>> + under /sys/kernel/debug/fail_function. No boot option supported. > >> > >> I like it. > >> Could you document it a bit better? > > > > Yes, I will do in next series. > > > >> In particular retval is configurable, but without an example no one > >> will be able to figure out how to use it. > > > > Ah, right. BTW, as I pointed in the covermail, should we store the > > expected error value range into the injectable list? e.g. > > > > ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(open_ctree, -1, -MAX_ERRNO) > > > > And provide APIs to check/get it. > > I'm afraid such check would be too costly. > Right now we have only two functions marked but I expect hundreds more > will be added in the near future as soon as developers realize the > potential of such error injection. > All of ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION marks add 8 byte overhead each to .data. > Multiple by 1k and we have 8k of data spent on marks. > If we add max/min range marks that doubles it for very little use. > I think marking function only is enough. Sorry, I don't think so. Even if it takes 16 bytes more for each points, I don't think it is any overhead for machines in these days. Even if so, we can provide a kconfig to reduce it. I mean, we are living in GB-order memory are, and it will be bigger in the future. Why we have to worry about hundreds of 16bytes memory pieces? It will take a few KB, and even if we mark thousands of functions, it never reaches 1MB, in GB memory pool. :) Of course, for many small-footprint embedded devices (like having less than 128MB memory), this feature can be a overhead. But they can cut off the table by kconfig. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu