Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221209022305.321149-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20221213202443.GU4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
In-Reply-To: <20221213202443.GU4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 15:51:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRXaq-GSpbRqeioQ-M1LHZGdis_qOA8thj8w6EndkB4qg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] locktorture: Allow non-rtmutex lock types to be boosted
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        connoro@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 3:24 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 02:23:04AM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Currently RT boosting is only done for rtmutex_lock, however with proxy
> > execution, we also have the mutex_lock participating in priorities. To
> > exercise the testing better, add RT boosting to other lock testing types
> > as well, using a new knob (rt_boost).
> >
> > Tested with boot parameters:
> > locktorture.torture_type=mutex_lock
> > locktorture.onoff_interval=1
> > locktorture.nwriters_stress=8
> > locktorture.stutter=0
> > locktorture.rt_boost=1
> > locktorture.rt_boost_factor=1
> > locktorture.nlocks=3
> >
> > For the rtmutex test, rt_boost is always enabled even if disabling is
> > requested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
>
> Nice, thank you!
>
> Except that "git am -3" doesn't know about the commit on which this
> is based.  Could you please rebase onto the -rcu tree's "dev" branch?
>
> Though there is nothing touching kernel/locking/locktorture.c in
> -rcu at the moment, so I confess some curiosity as to exactly what
> these patches are based on.  ;-)

Ah, I am not sure any more as it has been some time but I believe it
was v5.15. My bad and I rebased it on to rcu/dev branch and resent it
just now :)

Thank you!

 - Joel