Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants

From: Fengguang Wu
Date: Mon Oct 12 2015 - 12:03:16 EST

Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: GPF in rt6_uncached_list_flush_dev"
Previous message: Oleg Nesterov: "Re: [PATCH] signal: Make the si_code check in rt_[tg]sigqueueinfo stricter"
In reply to: Boqun Feng: "Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants"
Next in thread: Fengguang Wu: "Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Fengguang,
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:29:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> >
> > The base tree detection is based on the whole patchset's
> >
> > - subjects
> > - touched files
> > - TO/CC list
> >
> > Log shows the files and TO/CC are strongly related to powerpc,
> > so it looks a natural choice to apply to it. Especially you put
> > "linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" in the TO list while Peter/Ingo
> > in the CC list -- that looks like a strong indication for powerpc.
> >
>
> Thank you for your explanation, so how about modifying the title to:
>
> [PATCH v3 tip/locking/core 2/6] ...
>
> also works?

Yes it will work -- that'd be the most strong hint.

> BTW, does this bot have more tests than 0day? I have pushed this
> patchset to my own repo and had it tested by 0day.

Yes, it runs git am, the resulted commits are feed to 0day for
build/boot/performance tests. If you've already pushed the patches via
git, the robot should have skip such duplicate tests on the emailed
patches -- unless there is a bug. I'll have a check.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] patched_files: ["arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h", "lib/atomic64_test.c", "include/linux/atomic.h", "arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h"]
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next"]
> >
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] lists: ["linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", "linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", "Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>", "Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>"
> > , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>", "Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>", "Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>", "Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > e>", "Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>", "\"Paul E. McKenney\" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>", "Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>", "Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>"
> > , "Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>"]
> > [2015-10-12 22:27:49] bases: ["powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", "powerpc/next", "mpe/next", "mpe/next", "arm64/for-next/core", "arm64/for-next/core"]
> >
> > The possible improvement would be to let tip:locking/core register
> > itself in the MAINTAINERS file to match files *cmpxchg* *atomic*.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:43:56PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Boqun,
> > > >
> > > > [auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc5 -- if it's inappropriate base, please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > > >
> > >
> > > This patch should be tested based on current locking/core branch of tip
> > > tree. Thank you.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Boqun
> > >
> > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Boqun-Feng/atomics-powerpc-Implement-relaxed-acquire-release-variants-of-some-atomics/20151012-222750
> > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x016-10121751 (attached as .config)
> > > > reproduce:
> > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > make ARCH=x86_64
> > > >
> > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > >
> > > > In file included from include/linux/init.h:4:0,
> > > > from lib/atomic64_test.c:14:
> > > > lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_inc_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > > test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return, \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_inc_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > > test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return, \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_inc_return_relaxed' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > lib/atomic64_test.c:40:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > > test(bit, op##_relaxed, ##args); \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:79:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return, \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:113:2: note: in expansion of macro 'INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_dec_return_acquire' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:38:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > > test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > > > ^
> > > > lib/atomic64_test.c:85:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, dec_return, \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:114:2: note: in expansion of macro 'DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_dec_return_release' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:166:42: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
> > > > # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:60:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> > > > BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > ^
> > > > lib/atomic64_test.c:39:2: note: in expansion of macro 'TEST_ARGS'
> > > > test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> > > > ^
> > > > lib/atomic64_test.c:85:2: note: in expansion of macro 'FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, dec_return, \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> lib/atomic64_test.c:114:2: note: in expansion of macro 'DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST'
> > > > DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > ^
> > > >
> > > > vim +/atomic_inc_return_acquire +60 lib/atomic64_test.c
> > > >
> > > > 8 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > > > 9 * (at your option) any later version.
> > > > 10 */
> > > > 11
> > > > 12 #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> > > > 13
> > > > > 14 #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > 15 #include <linux/bug.h>
> > > > 16 #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > 17 #include <linux/atomic.h>
> > > > 18
> > > > 19 #define TEST(bit, op, c_op, val) \
> > > > 20 do { \
> > > > 21 atomic##bit##_set(&v, v0); \
> > > > 22 r = v0; \
> > > > 23 atomic##bit##_##op(val, &v); \
> > > > 24 r c_op val; \
> > > > 25 WARN(atomic##bit##_read(&v) != r, "%Lx != %Lx\n", \
> > > > 26 (unsigned long long)atomic##bit##_read(&v), \
> > > > 27 (unsigned long long)r); \
> > > > 28 } while (0)
> > > > 29
> > > > 30 /*
> > > > 31 * Test for a atomic operation family,
> > > > 32 * @test should be a macro accepting parameters (bit, op, ...)
> > > > 33 */
> > > > 34
> > > > 35 #define FAMILY_TEST(test, bit, op, args...) \
> > > > 36 do { \
> > > > 37 test(bit, op, ##args); \
> > > > > 38 test(bit, op##_acquire, ##args); \
> > > > > 39 test(bit, op##_release, ##args); \
> > > > > 40 test(bit, op##_relaxed, ##args); \
> > > > 41 } while (0)
> > > > 42
> > > > 43 #define TEST_RETURN(bit, op, c_op, val) \
> > > > 44 do { \
> > > > 45 atomic##bit##_set(&v, v0); \
> > > > 46 r = v0; \
> > > > 47 r c_op val; \
> > > > 48 BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(val, &v) != r); \
> > > > 49 BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_read(&v) != r); \
> > > > 50 } while (0)
> > > > 51
> > > > 52 #define RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, op, c_op, val) \
> > > > 53 do { \
> > > > 54 FAMILY_TEST(TEST_RETURN, bit, op, c_op, val); \
> > > > 55 } while (0)
> > > > 56
> > > > 57 #define TEST_ARGS(bit, op, init, ret, expect, args...) \
> > > > 58 do { \
> > > > 59 atomic##bit##_set(&v, init); \
> > > > > 60 BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_##op(&v, ##args) != ret); \
> > > > 61 BUG_ON(atomic##bit##_read(&v) != expect); \
> > > > 62 } while (0)
> > > > 63
> > > > 64 #define XCHG_FAMILY_TEST(bit, init, new) \
> > > > 65 do { \
> > > > 66 FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, xchg, init, init, new, new); \
> > > > 67 } while (0)
> > > > 68
> > > > 69 #define CMPXCHG_FAMILY_TEST(bit, init, new, wrong) \
> > > > 70 do { \
> > > > 71 FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, cmpxchg, \
> > > > 72 init, init, new, init, new); \
> > > > 73 FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, cmpxchg, \
> > > > 74 init, init, init, wrong, new); \
> > > > 75 } while (0)
> > > > 76
> > > > 77 #define INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, i) \
> > > > 78 do { \
> > > > > 79 FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, inc_return, \
> > > > 80 i, (i) + one, (i) + one); \
> > > > 81 } while (0)
> > > > 82
> > > > 83 #define DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(bit, i) \
> > > > 84 do { \
> > > > > 85 FAMILY_TEST(TEST_ARGS, bit, dec_return, \
> > > > 86 i, (i) - one, (i) - one); \
> > > > 87 } while (0)
> > > > 88
> > > > 89 static __init void test_atomic(void)
> > > > 90 {
> > > > 91 int v0 = 0xaaa31337;
> > > > 92 int v1 = 0xdeadbeef;
> > > > 93 int onestwos = 0x11112222;
> > > > 94 int one = 1;
> > > > 95
> > > > 96 atomic_t v;
> > > > 97 int r;
> > > > 98
> > > > 99 TEST(, add, +=, onestwos);
> > > > 100 TEST(, add, +=, -one);
> > > > 101 TEST(, sub, -=, onestwos);
> > > > 102 TEST(, sub, -=, -one);
> > > > 103 TEST(, or, |=, v1);
> > > > 104 TEST(, and, &=, v1);
> > > > 105 TEST(, xor, ^=, v1);
> > > > 106 TEST(, andnot, &= ~, v1);
> > > > 107
> > > > 108 RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, add_return, +=, onestwos);
> > > > 109 RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, add_return, +=, -one);
> > > > 110 RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, sub_return, -=, onestwos);
> > > > 111 RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, sub_return, -=, -one);
> > > > 112
> > > > > 113 INC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > > 114 DEC_RETURN_FAMILY_TEST(, v0);
> > > > 115
> > > > 116 XCHG_FAMILY_TEST(, v0, v1);
> > > > 117 CMPXCHG_FAMILY_TEST(, v0, v1, onestwos);
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> kbuild-all mailing list
> kbuild-all@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild-all

--
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/

Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: GPF in rt6_uncached_list_flush_dev"
Previous message: Oleg Nesterov: "Re: [PATCH] signal: Make the si_code check in rt_[tg]sigqueueinfo stricter"
In reply to: Boqun Feng: "Re: [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants"
Next in thread: Fengguang Wu: "Re: [kbuild-all] [lkp] [PATCH v3 2/6] atomics: Add test for atomic operations with _relaxed variants"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]