Hi Ilpo,
On 9/13/2023 3:01 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
Unmounting resctrl FS has been moved into the per test functions in resctrl_tests.c by commit caddc0fbe495 ("selftests/resctrl: Move resctrl FS mount/umount to higher level"). In case a signal (SIGINT, SIGTERM, or SIGHUP) is received, the running selftest is aborted by ctrlc_handler() which then unmounts resctrl fs before exiting. The current section between signal_handler_register() and signal_handler_unregister(), however, does not cover the entire duration when resctrl FS is mounted.
Move signal_handler_register() and signal_handler_unregister() call into the test functions in resctrl_tests.c to properly unmount resctrl fs. Adjust child process kill() call in ctrlc_handler() to only be invoked if the child was already forked.
Thank you for catching this.
Fixes: caddc0fbe495 ("selftests/resctrl: Move resctrl FS mount/umount to higher level") Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 8 ------- .../testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c | 22 ++++++++--------- 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c index 97b87285ab2a..224ba8544d8a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c @@ -167,12 +167,6 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char *cache_type) strcpy(param.filename, RESULT_FILE_NAME1); param.num_of_runs = 0; param.cpu_no = sibling_cpu_no;
- } else {
ret = signal_handler_register();if (ret) {kill(bm_pid, SIGKILL);goto out;}remove(param.filename); @@ -209,10 +203,8 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char *cache_type) } close(pipefd[0]); kill(bm_pid, SIGKILL);
signal_handler_unregister();-out: cat_test_cleanup(); return ret; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c index 823672a20a43..3d66fbdc2df3 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c @@ -73,8 +73,13 @@ static void run_mbm_test(const char * const *benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) ksft_print_msg("Starting MBM BW change ...\n");
- res = signal_handler_register();
- if (res)
return;- res = mount_resctrlfs(); if (res) {
signal_handler_unregister();@@ -91,6 +96,7 @@ static void run_mbm_test(const char * const *benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) umount: umount_resctrlfs();
- signal_handler_unregister();
} static void run_mba_test(const char * const *benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) @@ -99,8 +105,13 @@ static void run_mba_test(const char * const *benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) ksft_print_msg("Starting MBA Schemata change ...\n");
- res = signal_handler_register();
- if (res)
return;- res = mount_resctrlfs(); if (res) {
signal_handler_unregister();@@ -115,6 +126,7 @@ static void run_mba_test(const char * const *benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) umount: umount_resctrlfs();
- signal_handler_unregister();
}
This adds more duplicated code for every test. Have you considered a single test setup function that can be used to mount resctrl FS and setup the signal handler paired with a single test teardown function?
Yes. Consolidating all these is among my not-yet submitted patches. I just had to do a backport-friendly Fixes patch first for this.
Could you please help me understand how the duplicate calls are more backport friendly?
Reinette