On Sat, 1 Mar 2014, Andi Kleen wrote: > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> writes: > > > > BTW, is the perf_fuzzer code posted somewhere? It sounds like it can be > > really useful for us to do our own testing too. > > I believe it's part of trinity. > > http://codemonkey.org.uk/projects/trinity/ > > Perhaps it should have a "ftracer fuzzer" too?
It's not part of trinity, it's a separate project that re-uses some of trinity's codebase. http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/projects/perf_events/fuzzer/ You can get the source as part of the perf_event_tests package https://github.com/deater/perf_event_tests go into the fuzzer directory, run make, then "./perf_fuzzer". You can also run the ./fast_repro.sh script instead, it's what I've been using to track this kernel issue, although it tripped over the issue a lot faster when compiled with -mx32 than it did when complied as native x86_64. I think the code as found in the git tree should be working, I made a lot of changes when tracking this problem and I need to make sure I only check in the proper ones and not let any weird debugging patches slip in. I'm aware of at least two other WARN messages and possibly one or two hard-lockup bugs in addition to the potential system reboot that can be triggered by the fuzzer, it just takes a while to isolate these things. Vince -- 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/
