[PATCH v3] drivers: psci: PSCI checker module

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:51:57PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 27/10/16 10:13, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:11:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 06:35:34PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:22:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 06:10:06PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>[ . . . ]
> >>
> >>>>>Thanks a lot for your feedback, thoughts appreciated.
> >>>>Let me ask the question more directly.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why on earth are we trying to run these tests concurrently?
> >>>We must prevent that, no question about that, that's why I started
> >>>this discussion. It is not fine to enable this checker and the
> >>>RCU/LOCK torture hotplug tests at the same time.
> >>>
> >>>>After all, if we just run one at a time in isolation, there is no
> >>>>problem.
> >>>Fine by me, it was to understand if the current assumptions we made
> >>>are correct and they are definitely not. If we enable the PSCI checker
> >>>we must disable the torture rcu/lock hotplug tests either statically or
> >>>dynamically.
> >>What rcutorture, locktorture, and rcuperf do is to invoke
> >>torture_init_begin(), which returns false if one of these tests
> >>is already running.
> >>
> >>Perhaps we should extract this torture-test-exclusion and require
> >>than conflicting torture tests invoke it?
> >Yes if it can be extracted as a check (but it should also prevent the
> >torture tests from running and vice versa), either that or Kconfig
> >dependency (which we could do as a first step, waiting to add the
> >required interface to the torture test code ?).
> >
> >Thanks !
> >Lorenzo
> 
> That sounds like a reasonable idea, but then that would mean that the PSCI checker
> would have to wait until the torture test is finished if it is already running (and
> the other way around).
> 
> I wasn't aware that torture tests were hotplugging CPUs. I think that the most
> sensible thing to do right now is to make CONFIG_PSCI_CHECKER depend on
> !CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST (or maybe specifically !CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST &&
> !CONFIG_LOCK_TORTURE_TEST). We can try to make them work together afterwards, but for
> the sake of getting this patch merged in a reasonable amount of time, I think we
> should just exclude the conflicting tests at the build level in this patch. I'll also
> update the comment accordingly.

I suggest !CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST, given that there are a couple of other
tests in the offing.

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> Kevin
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
>