From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Add a simple backtrace test module
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:13:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080110091319.GB23878@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080109224208.541a659f@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> During the work on the x86 32 and 64 bit backtrace code I found it
> useful to have a simple test module to test a process and irq context
> backtrace. Since the existing backtrace code was buggy, I figure it
> might be useful to have such a test module in the kernel so that maybe
> we can even detect such bugs earlier..
cool patch, applied!
a few suggestions:
a fundamental one: could you do a save_stack_trace() and check that both
the process context and the irq context functions are present in that
trace? If not then flag it as a regression and emit a real WARN_ON()
warning.
i.e. use save_stack_trace() to do a "silent" test - instead of emitting
backtraces during bootup. (which are marked via 'this is not a bug' but
which are visually active nevertheless.)
the locking selftests use similar techniques to never emit real
warnings, just a readable table of test results:
| Locking API testsuite:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
A-B-B-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
internally, while the test is running, lockdep is triggered for real but
the debug output and the backtraces are supressed.
and a few small details:
> + printk("====[ backtrace testing ]===========\n");
> + printk("Testing a backtrace from process context.\n");
> + printk("The following trace is a kernel self test and not a bug!\n");
the printks need a KERN_ attribute.
> + dump_stack();
> +
> + init_timer(&backtrace_timer);
> + backtrace_timer.function = backtrace_test_timer;
> + mod_timer(&backtrace_timer, jiffies + 10);
> +
> + msleep(10);
> + printk("====[ end of backtrace testing ]====\n");
would be nice to have a testcase for the NMI watchdog and the softlockup
watchdog as well: do they properly detect lockups on all CPUs?
> +static void exitf(void)
s/exitf/exit_backtrace_test
> + This option provides a kernel module that can be used to test
> + the kernel stack backtrace code. This option is not useful
> + for distributions or general kernels, but only for kernel
> + developers working on architecture code.
s/but only/only
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-10 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-10 6:42 Arjan van de Ven
2008-01-10 8:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-10 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-10 9:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-10 9:13 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080110091319.GB23878@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®