Muhammad,

I am sorry, but... are you aware that this patch was applied over a year ago,
and then this code was updated to use the ksft_API?

Oleg.

On 04/07, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>
> On 3/16/23 5:30 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com>
> > 
> > Test that POSIX timers using CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID eventually deliver
> > a signal to all running threads.  This effectively tests that the kernel
> > doesn't prefer any one thread (or subset of threads) for signal delivery.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <el...@google.com>
> > ---
> > v6:
> > - Update wording on what the test aims to test.
> > - Fix formatting per checkpatch.pl.
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 77 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c 
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c
> > index 0ba500056e63..8a17c0e8d82b 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c
> > @@ -188,6 +188,80 @@ static int check_timer_create(int which)
> >     return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +int remain;
> > +__thread int got_signal;
> > +
> > +static void *distribution_thread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > +   while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
> > +   return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void distribution_handler(int nr)
> > +{
> > +   if (!__atomic_exchange_n(&got_signal, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED))
> > +           __atomic_fetch_sub(&remain, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test that all running threads _eventually_ receive 
> > CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID
> > + * timer signals. This primarily tests that the kernel does not favour any 
> > one.
> > + */
> > +static int check_timer_distribution(void)
> > +{
> > +   int err, i;
> > +   timer_t id;
> > +   const int nthreads = 10;
> > +   pthread_t threads[nthreads];
> > +   struct itimerspec val = {
> > +           .it_value.tv_sec = 0,
> > +           .it_value.tv_nsec = 1000 * 1000,
> > +           .it_interval.tv_sec = 0,
> > +           .it_interval.tv_nsec = 1000 * 1000,
> > +   };
> > +
> > +   printf("Check timer_create() per process signal distribution... ");
> Use APIs from kselftest.h. Use ksft_print_msg() here.
> 
> > +   fflush(stdout);
> > +
> > +   remain = nthreads + 1;  /* worker threads + this thread */
> > +   signal(SIGALRM, distribution_handler);
> > +   err = timer_create(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, NULL, &id);
> > +   if (err < 0) {
> > +           perror("Can't create timer\n");
> ksft_perror() here
> 
> > +           return -1;
> > +   }
> > +   err = timer_settime(id, 0, &val, NULL);
> > +   if (err < 0) {
> > +           perror("Can't set timer\n");
> > +           return -1;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   for (i = 0; i < nthreads; i++) {
> > +           if (pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, distribution_thread, 
> > NULL)) {
> > +                   perror("Can't create thread\n");
> > +                   return -1;
> > +           }
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   /* Wait for all threads to receive the signal. */
> > +   while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
> > +
> > +   for (i = 0; i < nthreads; i++) {
> > +           if (pthread_join(threads[i], NULL)) {
> > +                   perror("Can't join thread\n");
> > +                   return -1;
> > +           }
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   if (timer_delete(id)) {
> > +           perror("Can't delete timer\n");
> > +           return -1;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   printf("[OK]\n");
> ksft_test_result or _pass variant as needed?
> 
> > +   return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >  {
> >     printf("Testing posix timers. False negative may happen on CPU 
> > execution \n");
> > @@ -217,5 +291,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >     if (check_timer_create(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID) < 0)
> >             return ksft_exit_fail();
> >  
> > +   if (check_timer_distribution() < 0)
> > +           return ksft_exit_fail();
> > +
> >     return ksft_exit_pass();
> >  }
> 
> -- 
> BR,
> Muhammad Usama Anjum
> 


Reply via email to