On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 10:19:08AM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 12:55:30PM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:00:54AM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > > > > > This commit make rcu_test_debug_objects() early return when the > > > > > > specified cur_ops not set the ->debug_objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 5 +++-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c > > > > > > index 08bf7c669dd3..9b8c277ab91a 100644 > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c > > > > > > @@ -3495,8 +3495,9 @@ static void rcu_test_debug_objects(void) > > > > > > return; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cur_ops->debug_objects && > > > > > > - (!cur_ops->call || !cur_ops->cb_barrier))) > > > > > > + if (!cur_ops->debug_objects || > > > > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cur_ops->debug_objects && > > > > > > > > > > You lost me here. Given that we have "!cur_ops->debug_objects" before > > > > > that WARN_ON_ONCE(), why do we need "cur_ops->debug_objects" inside of it? > > > > > > > > > > Also, we don't get here unless the rcutorture.object_debug kernel boot > > > > > parameter is specified, don't we really want to WARN_ON_ONCE if the > > > > > current flavor does not support that? > > > > > > Maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough, this > > > modification is mainly to filter out test types that do not support > > > double call_rcu*() checking, for example tasks, tasks-rudes, > > > task-tracing ;) . > > > > Understood. > > > > It is just that in my experience, it is a good thing for rcutorture to > > splat when asked to do something that it cannot do. Or do you have a > > use case where this is problematic? > > > > Hi, Paul > > > This is a scene I mentioned before: > > The rcutorture.object_debug is set true, but the tasks-tracing does not support > duplicate cur_ops->call check, but the debug_objects test was still done. > > insmod rcutorture.ko torture_type=tasks-tracing fwd_progress=4 > n_barrier_cbs=4 object_debug=1 > > [ 106.082416] rcutorture: WARN: Duplicate call_tasks-tracing() test starting. > [ 106.082533] tasks-tracing-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of test > [ 106.082543] tasks-tracing-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode > [ 106.105552] rcutorture: duplicated callback was invoked. > [ 106.105567] rcutorture: duplicated callback was invoked. > > for call_rcu*() that does not support double call checking, if > continue to test, > "rcutorture: duplicated callback was invoked". will output, > I just want to avoid the output of this error message :) OK, but then why not just avoid setting rcutorture.object_debug for the torture_type values that do not support it? Thanx, Paul > Thanks > Zqiang > > > > I don't count the fuzzers because they are supposed to avoid specifying > > things that are supposed to fail. ;-) > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > Thanks > > > Zqiang > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Paul > > > > > > > > The rcutorture.object_debug is set true, but the tasks-tracing does not support > > > > duplicate cur_ops->call check, but the debug_objects test was still done. > > > > > > > > insmod rcutorture.ko torture_type=tasks-tracing fwd_progress=4 > > > > n_barrier_cbs=4 object_debug=1 > > > > > > > > [ 106.082416] rcutorture: WARN: Duplicate call_tasks-tracing() test starting. > > > > [ 106.082533] tasks-tracing-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of test > > > > [ 106.082543] tasks-tracing-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode > > > > [ 106.105552] rcutorture: duplicated callback was invoked. > > > > [ 106.105567] rcutorture: duplicated callback was invoked. > > > > [ 106.111269] rcutorture: WARN: Duplicate call_tasks-tracing() test complete. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Zqiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do you have a use case that needs to silence these warnings? > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > + (!cur_ops->call || !cur_ops->cb_barrier))) > > > > > > return; > > > > > > > > > > > > struct rcu_head *rhp = kmalloc(sizeof(*rhp), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > >
