| Message ID | 20230317031339.10277-4-boqun.feng@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 60a1a64ec0c08e02f2cd4372cd3971e9d5eb2b37 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RCU-related lockdep changes for v6.4 | expand |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 08:13:35PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > The stress test in test_ww_mutex_init() uses 4095 locks since > lockdep::reference has 12 bits, and since we are going to reduce it to > 11 bits to support lock_sync(), and 2047 is still a reasonable number of > the max nesting level for locks, so adjust the test. > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202302011445.9d99dae2-oliver.sang@intel.com > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > --- > kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c > index 29dc253d03af..93cca6e69860 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c > @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void) > if (ret) > return ret; > > - ret = stress(4095, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL); > + ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL); > if (ret) > return ret; > > -- > 2.39.2 >
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:38:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 08:13:35PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > > The stress test in test_ww_mutex_init() uses 4095 locks since > > lockdep::reference has 12 bits, and since we are going to reduce it to > > 11 bits to support lock_sync(), and 2047 is still a reasonable number of > > the max nesting level for locks, so adjust the test. > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202302011445.9d99dae2-oliver.sang@intel.com > > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> > > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > Applied, thanks! Regards, Boqun > > --- > > kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c > > index 29dc253d03af..93cca6e69860 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c > > @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void) > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > - ret = stress(4095, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL); > > + ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > -- > > 2.39.2 > >
diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c index 29dc253d03af..93cca6e69860 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void) if (ret) return ret; - ret = stress(4095, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL); + ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL); if (ret) return ret;
The stress test in test_ww_mutex_init() uses 4095 locks since lockdep::reference has 12 bits, and since we are going to reduce it to 11 bits to support lock_sync(), and 2047 is still a reasonable number of the max nesting level for locks, so adjust the test. Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202302011445.9d99dae2-oliver.sang@intel.com Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> --- kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)