From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
To:     "paulmck@kernel.org" <paulmck@kernel.org>
CC:     "dave@stgolabs.net" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "josh@joshtriplett.org" <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for
 PREEMPT_RT kernels
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for
 PREEMPT_RT kernels
Thread-Index: AQHZQQOQoUWyhnQ0g0erj0/4773a9K7VHgwAgACdRLA=
Date:   Sun, 19 Feb 2023 05:04:41 +0000
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5880CD867814DFAAF8930E5BDAA79@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20230215061035.1534950-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
 <20230218193438.GE2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
In-Reply-To: <20230218193438.GE2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?us-ascii?Q?+MVdDcbaACwChYzX0DDaVnEAXfsVbLeceT474irSR0XGVLxVt1N4Fbq5IX6+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nzEt6httKq9XWZIpWvwXkej3CpH/y2Qfg9FhIxY4vwXhs6OFA+vUE7kaF92P?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ig0PA1H7lFsDpgM2aGVOPqEEdaZxhq0C9fzOMGUvOMWrAVtBq88SJ+ic44Fv?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?XdPEmrn6ZDdNjP3QkW7EPP2L0CBin6HifnOkehaszqGR2LNOkAzIdSIqR0lk?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?gBNKKYUFcwS1sgQ1F1B5HyJgrXgpN+hXSdMuVxXv1EVRpYCP1dmUKm6vp7Mg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GR3F2XFeb9OVmjF9KXle4NSlqsYRUUsSWCi0UcWkgv9e1DNvemrM38dzD0Cc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?taL2n3/KeShSfM4nMdy/O4dCsWdlk+LPJvdcKMe8woUD9Eqd0BAncUhSpJfz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?unKyuBgTdQoMgd6WQDZuO5VrC/EHI56kJZ9un68F+jk/6ygNz8EFTRmyXwj8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BClLMqpUyKFLxOOzIFVE7VPvyExQe3XOAq400r1tmSSilTErYI89hMjW5nVl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?uxfZqL2byFjUh0NgN7UPKHsvoS2RHxdRsUoCFfBHjPe1n0WKIqKSkLnMWIQe?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?fGDO3Gcxwe0cX6tTNjVxj0uxMFwEuHZpiQvHQ0STab5AFIndVgjf0wUMswH3?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?EBSoMeCyvrxWl4g+mzjXfC4lzNN7FpJjC66+14BGilhRn6oKJw59B9OFxZuk?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?MAhOCaxb+BSEk6lsMXWOqx3I7zr8T/Hl8pZsrmIhLUtnxBcrUfkqsUGyBWyc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?W9+42KbS6tXvBkJOol9JwO1/X+137SacdJX6INByl5KT3ZKqVNIPxlYyAeq9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Yp074WJ0HYObSnGa75gfSAW67JOdK+V0TMNXgdnnqN/VHQQyTMt1fT1R8VtC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?M1Xh0QxEvOWMJG5vr/P7VwzyU+ygaDjrj2WSLqfXrZ05eJUkkwE40wv7Lg4j?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4thbtQKeHobugQhdBlEHWfb88PPG3ZwHTtEATyiYkQ7K4GLau4s5R03LPSAl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?LAuST20RHuICpGF8CSCJySf0zWV8YClQgQIpZ2q8pm3ZS8XRJBQ8GlSeTZjd?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?eAynphhfeunNM2ioPFxIZGivGrpYuSm2jA+0W06BhfmNMOwEvHMFFc0Ln1sQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RLkxdmnNqOs1eKqYx7Jhe92aTNUuyl0d2wzFgOD524u6vnVH0neVFSUwFSYn?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?QlA4ePVy0ObYXBGXEWARnRopWFtCN++8F3fQKsQkH0EWfIUfZo9J3A19qfFQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?yBnoLhh8VFoCkbQNBmKpBZZyIymQ/UpB5wyKgn0YNINDZZ5V+m8jon5pnIWH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?8m4ftDW34DbgqKhO1lvKmbkNs6uYL/ZS++Gc1lKduarm8kJ4CYuP3RweahJN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ztLcsTv4uVd/Qp1ipnAufHRQ9QglZ/WmDGjppdc78lj8ToaCxzHhsz0uu7l+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ftfsW1NTilcJRJ5HuR6vp15qM9xnTNJIuGCUJ9CzLCbCvd/Ji2sLydrcTV3B?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?H8suwVxEd6WaIW8PJqKy0CDUK+ITCd2e0QFZOZK2fn0ztk3NUU8pMioUeSyO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?srLx1JqkiJlhnQCECtJBodVr3EvtC5aRsSRNrUlS?=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6feb0193-d060-4532-1e16-08db1236cf22
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Feb 2023 05:04:41.5398
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: HHWwG6uhQBdtNHCaJLhqHcrAM7J9BL6WuXdzzKrb7humlRXgnsK0QiXFMw9pzNweqmbJFGqMhMKEruSiixnKJw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN9PR11MB5483
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


>On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:10:35PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted
> to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for
> spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's
> interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture
> tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
>
>A nice addition!  Is this something you will be testing regularly?
>If not, should there be additional locktorture scenarios, perhaps prefixed
>by "RT-" to hint that they are not normally available?
>
>Or did you have some other plan for making use of these?

Hi Paul

Thanks for reply,  in fact, I want to enrich the test of locktorture,=20
after all, under the PREEMPT_RT kernel, we lost the test of the
real spin lock.=20

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>						Thanx, Paul
>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> index 9425aff08936..521197366f27 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops =3D=
 {
>  	.name		=3D "spin_lock_irq"
>  };
> =20
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock);
> +
> +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock);
> +}
> +
> +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops =3D {
> +	.writelock	=3D torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock,
> +	.write_delay	=3D torture_spin_lock_write_delay,
> +	.task_boost	=3D torture_rt_boost,
> +	.writeunlock	=3D torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock,
> +	.readlock	=3D NULL,
> +	.read_delay	=3D NULL,
> +	.readunlock	=3D NULL,
> +	.name		=3D "raw_spin_lock"
> +};
> +
> +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags);
> +	cxt.cur_ops->flags =3D flags;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unuse=
d)
> +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags);
> +}
> +
> +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops =3D {
> +	.writelock	=3D torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq,
> +	.write_delay	=3D torture_spin_lock_write_delay,
> +	.task_boost	=3D torture_rt_boost,
> +	.writeunlock	=3D torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq,
> +	.readlock	=3D NULL,
> +	.read_delay	=3D NULL,
> +	.readunlock	=3D NULL,
> +	.name		=3D "raw_spin_lock_irq"
> +};
> +#endif
> +
>  static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock);
> =20
>  static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void)
>  	static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] =3D {
>  		&lock_busted_ops,
>  		&spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> +		&raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops,
> +#endif
>  		&rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops,
>  		&mutex_lock_ops,
>  		&ww_mutex_lock_ops,
> --=20
> 2.25.1
>=20