Re: [PATCH 7/9] locktorture: Add infrastructure for torturing read locks

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 09:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:40:41PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > In addition, introduce a new nreaders_stress module parameter. The
> > default number of readers will be the same number of writers threads.
> > Writer threads are interleaved with readers. Documentation is updated,
> > respectively.
> 
> Nice!!!
> 
> Conditional fairness checks in the future?  (As in verifying that if
> the rwlock in question claims some degree of fairness, trying to break
> that guarantee, and contrariwise, if the lock is unfair, making sure
> to avoid starvation during the test?)

Yep, there are all sorts of interesting things we can measure in rw
runs. In this set I'm only trying to establish a minimum infrastructure.
Future work will be pretty trivial (at least code wise) to implement
once this sort of thing is in. 

> And one nit below.
[...]
> C initialization does this already, no need to add the NULL initializers.

Sure, I always tend to be explicit when initializing. I guess you won't
like the context initialization in patch 9/9.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/