RE: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels

[Zhang, Qiang1]

>On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:10:35PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted
> to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for
> spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's
> interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture
> tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>A nice addition!  Is this something you will be testing regularly?
>If not, should there be additional locktorture scenarios, perhaps prefixed
>by "RT-" to hint that they are not normally available?
>
>Or did you have some other plan for making use of these?

Hi Paul

Thanks for reply,  in fact, I want to enrich the test of locktorture, 
after all, under the PREEMPT_RT kernel, we lost the test of the
real spin lock. 

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>						Thanx, Paul
>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> index 9425aff08936..521197366f27 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = {
>  	.name		= "spin_lock_irq"
>  };
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock);
> +
> +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock);
> +}
> +
> +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops = {
> +	.writelock	= torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock,
> +	.write_delay	= torture_spin_lock_write_delay,
> +	.task_boost	= torture_rt_boost,
> +	.writeunlock	= torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock,
> +	.readlock	= NULL,
> +	.read_delay	= NULL,
> +	.readunlock	= NULL,
> +	.name		= "raw_spin_lock"
> +};
> +
> +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags);
> +	cxt.cur_ops->flags = flags;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused)
> +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock)
> +{
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags);
> +}
> +
> +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops = {
> +	.writelock	= torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq,
> +	.write_delay	= torture_spin_lock_write_delay,
> +	.task_boost	= torture_rt_boost,
> +	.writeunlock	= torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq,
> +	.readlock	= NULL,
> +	.read_delay	= NULL,
> +	.readunlock	= NULL,
> +	.name		= "raw_spin_lock_irq"
> +};
> +#endif
> +
>  static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock);
>  
>  static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused)
> @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void)
>  	static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] = {
>  		&lock_busted_ops,
>  		&spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> +		&raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops,
> +#endif
>  		&rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops,
>  		&mutex_lock_ops,
>  		&ww_mutex_lock_ops,
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>