Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1186550 > unrolled thread

Re: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests

Started byThomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
First post2015-07-17 10:10 +0200
Last post2015-07-17 12:40 +0200
Articles 4 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> - 2015-07-17 10:10 +0200
    Re: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> - 2015-07-17 12:30 +0200
    Re: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> - 2015-07-17 12:30 +0200
      Re: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> - 2015-07-17 12:40 +0200

#1186550 — Re: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests

FromThomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Date2015-07-17 10:10 +0200
SubjectRe: 4.1 regression in resizable hashtable tests
Message-ID<pN8Sv-82M-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 07/02/15 at 10:09pm, Meelis Roos wrote:
> [   33.425061] Running rhashtable test nelem=8, max_size=65536, shrinking=0
> [   33.425154] Test 00:
> [   33.534470]   Adding 50000 keys
> [   34.743553] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.743698] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.743838] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.744057] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.744430] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.745139] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.746441] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.749055] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.754469] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.764836] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.785696] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.827448] Info: encountered resize
> [   34.896936]   Traversal complete: counted=49993, nelems=50000, entries=50000, table-jumps=12
> [   34.897056] Test failed: Total count mismatch ^^^

I do see count mismatches as well due to the design of the walker
which restarts and thus sees certain entries multiple times.

Do you have this commit as well?

Author: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
Date:   Mon Jul 6 15:51:20 2015 +0200

    rhashtable: fix for resize events during table walk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1186677

FromPhil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
Date2015-07-17 12:30 +0200
Message-ID<pNb3Y-2EK-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1186550
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:26:36PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:04:56AM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > On 07/02/15 at 10:09pm, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > [   33.425061] Running rhashtable test nelem=8, max_size=65536, shrinking=0
> > > [   33.425154] Test 00:
> > > [   33.534470]   Adding 50000 keys
> > > [   34.743553] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.743698] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.743838] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.744057] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.744430] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.745139] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.746441] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.749055] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.754469] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.764836] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.785696] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.827448] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.896936]   Traversal complete: counted=49993, nelems=50000, entries=50000, table-jumps=12
> > > [   34.897056] Test failed: Total count mismatch ^^^
> > 
> > I do see count mismatches as well due to the design of the walker
> > which restarts and thus sees certain entries multiple times.
> > 
> > Do you have this commit as well?
> > 
> > Author: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
> > Date:   Mon Jul 6 15:51:20 2015 +0200
> > 
> >     rhashtable: fix for resize events during table walk
> 
> Thomas, this should be resolved already. Meelis replied[1] to my patch,
> stating it fixes that problem for him. Though he's still waiting for
> your proposed patch to add a schedule() call so the kernel won't
> complain on his slow UltraSparc. :)

Ah, nevermind. You sent it already with him in Cc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1186678

FromPhil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
Date2015-07-17 12:30 +0200
Message-ID<pNb3Y-2EK-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1186550
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:04:56AM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 07/02/15 at 10:09pm, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > [   33.425061] Running rhashtable test nelem=8, max_size=65536, shrinking=0
> > [   33.425154] Test 00:
> > [   33.534470]   Adding 50000 keys
> > [   34.743553] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.743698] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.743838] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.744057] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.744430] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.745139] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.746441] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.749055] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.754469] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.764836] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.785696] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.827448] Info: encountered resize
> > [   34.896936]   Traversal complete: counted=49993, nelems=50000, entries=50000, table-jumps=12
> > [   34.897056] Test failed: Total count mismatch ^^^
> 
> I do see count mismatches as well due to the design of the walker
> which restarts and thus sees certain entries multiple times.
> 
> Do you have this commit as well?
> 
> Author: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
> Date:   Mon Jul 6 15:51:20 2015 +0200
> 
>     rhashtable: fix for resize events during table walk

Thomas, this should be resolved already. Meelis replied[1] to my patch,
stating it fixes that problem for him. Though he's still waiting for
your proposed patch to add a schedule() call so the kernel won't
complain on his slow UltraSparc. :)

Cheers, Phil

[1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg335767.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1186684

FromThomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Date2015-07-17 12:40 +0200
Message-ID<pNbdD-2PM-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1186678
On 07/17/15 at 12:26pm, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:04:56AM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > On 07/02/15 at 10:09pm, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > [   33.425061] Running rhashtable test nelem=8, max_size=65536, shrinking=0
> > > [   33.425154] Test 00:
> > > [   33.534470]   Adding 50000 keys
> > > [   34.743553] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.743698] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.743838] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.744057] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.744430] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.745139] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.746441] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.749055] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.754469] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.764836] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.785696] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.827448] Info: encountered resize
> > > [   34.896936]   Traversal complete: counted=49993, nelems=50000, entries=50000, table-jumps=12
> > > [   34.897056] Test failed: Total count mismatch ^^^
> > 
> > I do see count mismatches as well due to the design of the walker
> > which restarts and thus sees certain entries multiple times.
> > 
> > Do you have this commit as well?
> > 
> > Author: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
> > Date:   Mon Jul 6 15:51:20 2015 +0200
> > 
> >     rhashtable: fix for resize events during table walk
> 
> Thomas, this should be resolved already. Meelis replied[1] to my patch,
> stating it fixes that problem for him. Though he's still waiting for
> your proposed patch to add a schedule() call so the kernel won't
> complain on his slow UltraSparc. :)
> 
> Cheers, Phil
> 
> [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg335767.html

OK, good to know. I've posted the schedule patch today:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/497035/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web