Re: [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent rcutorture less power-hungry

[Vegard Nossum]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This patch makes the non-module rcutorture a bit more friendly to
>> the power-conservation code.  This is a rather simple-minded approach.
>> More sophisticated approaches would get rid of the rcutorture tasks
>> while rcutorture execution was suppressed, but attempts thus far to
>> do this have not gone well -- calling rcu_torture_init() from a /proc
>> callout results in oopses.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I applied your three patches
>
> [PATCH] Make rcutorture more vicious: add stutter feature
> [PATCH] Make rcutorture more vicious: reinstate boot-time testing
> [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent
> rcutorture less power-hungry
>
> to v2.6.26-rc7 and gave it a quick testing in qemu. But it seems to
> hang during gdb self-tests at boot:

Okay, you might disregard that. I'm typing on the very same kernel
running on a real machine now, so I assume that it's just qemu's
fault. (Actually, setting the number of cpus to 2 instead of 3 would
run the kgdb tests, but with a lot of warnings). But qemu is known to
have been buggy with these things before. (Sorry for the noise.)


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/