Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/15/2013 04:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:40:40AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> > Hmm... Can it really work on 1024 CPUs? sorry I don't know. But in fact, >> > that is not about this patch (it is just one of case which may cause >> > issues). >> > >> > This patch

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:40:40AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/14/2013 07:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > >>> - intend to shrink maximized buffer (PAGE_SIZE -> 64, 256 ..) for test. > > > > This is a good start! However, you

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:40:40AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: On 10/14/2013 07:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: - intend to shrink maximized buffer (PAGE_SIZE - 64, 256 ..) for test. This is a good start! However, you should also

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/15/2013 04:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:40:40AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: Hmm... Can it really work on 1024 CPUs? sorry I don't know. But in fact, that is not about this patch (it is just one of case which may cause issues). This patch is only about use

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/14/2013 07:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>> - intend to shrink maximized buffer (PAGE_SIZE -> 64, 256 ..) for test. > > This is a good start! However, you should also test the original kernel > to be sure that it really fails.

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/14/2013 09:41 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > > On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > >>> Hello Maintainers: > >>> > >>> In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: On 10/14/2013 09:41 AM, Chen Gang wrote: On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: Hello Maintainers: In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/14/2013 07:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: - intend to shrink maximized buffer (PAGE_SIZE - 64, 256 ..) for test. This is a good start! However, you should also test the original kernel to be sure that it really fails. You

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/14/2013 09:41 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>> Hello Maintainers: >>> >>> In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will >>> not be enough. >>> >>> In

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> Hello Maintainers: >> >> In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will >> not be enough. >> >> In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > Hello Maintainers: > > In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will > not be enough. > > In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has a > function pointer for printing, which not tell its

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: Hello Maintainers: In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will not be enough. In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has a function pointer for printing, which not tell its

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: Hello Maintainers: In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will not be enough. In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has a function

Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

On 10/14/2013 09:41 AM, Chen Gang wrote: On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: Hello Maintainers: In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will not be enough. In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page'

[Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

Hello Maintainers: In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will not be enough. In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has a function pointer for printing, which not tell its maximized length. Welcome any additional suggestions or completions.

[Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

Hello Maintainers: In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will not be enough. In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has a function pointer for printing, which not tell its maximized length. Welcome any additional suggestions or completions.