From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751427AbaENAMn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 13 May 2014 20:12:43 -0400
Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:48579 "EHLO
	e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750776AbaENAMm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 13 May 2014 20:12:42 -0400
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:12:35 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
        Carlos ODonell <carlos@redhat.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] rtmutex: Add missing deadlock check
Message-ID: <20140514001235.GB18164@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <5371B2D9.8060405@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20140513084815.GB2485@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405132117110.6261@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20140513162041.3405b668@gandalf.local.home>
 <20140513203619.GV18164@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405132301530.6261@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20140513220009.GW18164@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140513184430.5f2e12f8@gandalf.local.home>
 <20140513232710.GA18164@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140513195336.232bad54@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140513195336.232bad54@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 14051400-9332-0000-0000-000000C7A1B3
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:53:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:44:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:00:09 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Good points -- I was indeed thinking about stress testing instead of
> > > > algorithmic testing.
> > > 
> > > But doesn't lockdep use algorithmic tests too?
> > 
> > I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as non-algorithmic
> > testing, given that all test code uses an algorithm of some sort.  Perhaps
> > with the exception of letting your pet walk across the keyboard.  ;-)
> > 
> > Perhaps I should have instead said that I was thinking about random
> > testing instead of formal testing?
> 
> Actually it still applies, but I was mistaken, it's not lockdep itself,
> it's the LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS. They are a form of formal testing as
> suppose to random testing.
> 
> See lib/locking-selftest.c.
> 
> That looks more like something we can do for the rtmutex code, or even
> add to it.

Ah, got it!  That could work, though I would be tempted to try
automatically generating the C code/tables/whatever from some behavioral
specification.  Of course, there is always the speculation about how I
might feel about that approach after giving into such temptation...  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul