On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 05:37:55PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> wrote: > > The following series aims to improve lib/test_rhashtable in different > > situations: > > > > Patch 1 allows the kernel to reschedule so the test does not block too > > long on slow systems. > > Patch 2 fixes behaviour under pressure, retrying inserts in non-permanent > > error case (-EBUSY). > > Patch 3 auto-adjusts the upper table size limit according to the number > > of threads (in concurrency test). In fact, the current default is > > already too small. > > Patch 4 makes it possible to retry inserts even in supposedly permanent > > error case (-ENOMEM) to expose rhashtable's remaining problem of > > -ENOMEM being not as permanent as it is expected to be. > > I'm sorry but this patch series is simply bogus.
The whole series?! > If rhashtable is indeed returning such errors under normal > conditions then rhashtable is broken and we must fix it instead > of working around it in the test code! You're stating the obvious. Remember, the reason I prepared patch 4 was because you wanted to fix just that bug in rhashtable in the first place. Just to make this clear: Patches 1-3 are reasonable on their own, the only connection to the bug is that patch 2 makes it visible (at least on my system it wasn't before). > FWIW I still haven't been able to reproduce this problem, perhaps > because my machines have too few CPUs? Did you try with my bogus patch series applied? How many CPUs does your test system actually have? > So can someone please help me reproduce this? Because just loading > test_rhashtable isn't doing it. As said, maybe you need to increase the number of spawned threads (tcount=50 or so). Cheers, Phil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
