[PATCH v3] drivers: psci: PSCI checker module

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:06:00PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 27/10/16 15:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >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
> 
> Fair enough. If that's fine with Lorenzo, I'll add the dependency and post v4.

Yes, that's fine by me, thanks a lot !

Lorenzo