[PATCH 0/3] Make rcutorture safe(r) for arm64

Paul E. McKenney posted 3 patches 9 months ago
bin/console-badness.sh  |    2 +-
bin/parse-console.sh    |    2 +-
configs/rcu/TREE01      |    2 --
configs/rcu/TREE01.boot |    2 +-
4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
[PATCH 0/3] Make rcutorture safe(r) for arm64
Posted by Paul E. McKenney 9 months ago
Hello!

This series makes a few small updates to make rcutorture run better
on arm64 servers.  Remaining issues include TREE07 .config issues
that are addressed by Mark Rutland's porting of PREEMPT_LAZY to arm64
and by upcoming work to handle the fact that arm64 kernels cannot be
built with CONFIG_SMP=n.  In the meantime, the CONFIG_SMP=n issue can
be worked around by explictly specifying the TREE01, TREE02, TREE03,
TREE04, TREE05, TREE07, SRCU-L, SRCU-N, SRCU-P, TASKS01, TASKS03, RUDE01,
TRACE01, and TRACE02 scenarios, preferably in a script.  (But if you
want typing practice, don't let me stand in your way!)

1.	Check for "Call trace:" as well as "Call Trace:".

2.	Reduce TREE01 CPU overcommit.

3.	Remove MAXSMP and CPUMASK_OFFSTACK from TREE01.

						Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 bin/console-badness.sh  |    2 +-
 bin/parse-console.sh    |    2 +-
 configs/rcu/TREE01      |    2 --
 configs/rcu/TREE01.boot |    2 +-
 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Make rcutorture safe(r) for arm64
Posted by Joel Fernandes 9 months ago

On 5/8/2025 7:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> This series makes a few small updates to make rcutorture run better
> on arm64 servers.  Remaining issues include TREE07 .config issues
> that are addressed by Mark Rutland's porting of PREEMPT_LAZY to arm64
> and by upcoming work to handle the fact that arm64 kernels cannot be
> built with CONFIG_SMP=n.  In the meantime, the CONFIG_SMP=n issue can
> be worked around by explictly specifying the TREE01, TREE02, TREE03,
> TREE04, TREE05, TREE07, SRCU-L, SRCU-N, SRCU-P, TASKS01, TASKS03, RUDE01,
> TRACE01, and TRACE02 scenarios, preferably in a script.  (But if you
> want typing practice, don't let me stand in your way!)
> 
> 1.	Check for "Call trace:" as well as "Call Trace:".
> 
> 2.	Reduce TREE01 CPU overcommit.
> 
> 3.	Remove MAXSMP and CPUMASK_OFFSTACK from TREE01.
> 
Tested-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>

Applied for 6.16, thanks!

 - Joel
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Make rcutorture safe(r) for arm64
Posted by Joel Fernandes 9 months ago

On 5/8/2025 7:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> This series makes a few small updates to make rcutorture run better
> on arm64 servers.  Remaining issues include TREE07 .config issues
> that are addressed by Mark Rutland's porting of PREEMPT_LAZY to arm64
> and by upcoming work to handle the fact that arm64 kernels cannot be
> built with CONFIG_SMP=n.  In the meantime, the CONFIG_SMP=n issue can
> be worked around by explictly specifying the TREE01, TREE02, TREE03,
> TREE04, TREE05, TREE07, SRCU-L, SRCU-N, SRCU-P, TASKS01, TASKS03, RUDE01,
> TRACE01, and TRACE02 scenarios, preferably in a script.  (But if you
> want typing practice, don't let me stand in your way!)
> 
> 1.	Check for "Call trace:" as well as "Call Trace:".
> 
> 2.	Reduce TREE01 CPU overcommit.
> 
> 3.	Remove MAXSMP and CPUMASK_OFFSTACK from TREE01.
> 

These I will take for 6.16 and run some tests, since we're seeing these issues
on ARM. But let me know if you want to delay to 6.17. Thanks!
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Make rcutorture safe(r) for arm64
Posted by Paul E. McKenney 9 months ago
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/8/2025 7:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > This series makes a few small updates to make rcutorture run better
> > on arm64 servers.  Remaining issues include TREE07 .config issues
> > that are addressed by Mark Rutland's porting of PREEMPT_LAZY to arm64
> > and by upcoming work to handle the fact that arm64 kernels cannot be
> > built with CONFIG_SMP=n.  In the meantime, the CONFIG_SMP=n issue can
> > be worked around by explictly specifying the TREE01, TREE02, TREE03,
> > TREE04, TREE05, TREE07, SRCU-L, SRCU-N, SRCU-P, TASKS01, TASKS03, RUDE01,
> > TRACE01, and TRACE02 scenarios, preferably in a script.  (But if you
> > want typing practice, don't let me stand in your way!)
> > 
> > 1.	Check for "Call trace:" as well as "Call Trace:".
> > 
> > 2.	Reduce TREE01 CPU overcommit.
> > 
> > 3.	Remove MAXSMP and CPUMASK_OFFSTACK from TREE01.
> > 
> 
> These I will take for 6.16 and run some tests, since we're seeing these issues
> on ARM. But let me know if you want to delay to 6.17. Thanks!

Your decision on both sets makes a lot of sense to me, v6.16 for the
simple ARM-related ones and v6.17 for the less-important and more-complex
series.

							Thanx, Paul