From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752900AbaF0UEN (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:04:13 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:44469 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750831AbaF0UEM (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:04:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:04:11 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: shuah.kh@samsung.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@chromium.org, michael@ellerman.id.au, fweisbec@gmail.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: selftests - create a separate hotplug target Message-Id: <20140627130411.d351b6543787b826f5ba1b34@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <53ADCD3B.3000209@samsung.com> References: <1403814836-16964-1-git-send-email-shuah.kh@samsung.com> <20140626145106.83d8a15bfa07270b00e5d24b@linux-foundation.org> <53ADA58D.4070307@samsung.com> <20140627124552.d834ecd58c416c0a2d0dae02@linux-foundation.org> <53ADCD3B.3000209@samsung.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:59:55 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote: > > I don't know really. You know more about this than I - what advantages > > does the separate-make-target approach have over this approach? > > > > Currently these tests run with full range - i.e try to offline > all cpus that are hotpluggable and try to offline all memory > that is hotpluggable. This results in hangs. > > Creating a separate target the way I did it in this patch excludes these > tests all together. i.e when somebody runs: > > make -C tools/testing/selftests run_tests > > hotplug tests don't run. > > Instead, with a few changes, tests can be run with a reduced scope so > a % of the memory gets offlined as opposed to all of it and the same > thing with cpus. This way hotplug code gets tested as opposed to > being excluded in a default test run case. > > However, if limited scope testing isn't useful, separate target is > better until tests can be made safe to run without hangs. hm, OK. So it sounds like the best solution would be to run the limited tests by default and to require special intervention to run the full tests. I guess a separate make target is a suitable way of running the full tests. We could use an environment variable or various other things.