Phil Sutter <phil(a)nwl.cc> wrote:
The following series aims to improve lib/test_rhashtable in
Patch 1 allows the kernel to reschedule so the test does not block too
long on slow systems.
Patch 2 fixes behaviour under pressure, retrying inserts in non-permanent
error case (-EBUSY).
Patch 3 auto-adjusts the upper table size limit according to the number
of threads (in concurrency test). In fact, the current default is
already too small.
Patch 4 makes it possible to retry inserts even in supposedly permanent
error case (-ENOMEM) to expose rhashtable's remaining problem of
-ENOMEM being not as permanent as it is expected to be.
I'm sorry but this patch series is simply bogus.
If rhashtable is indeed returning such errors under normal
conditions then rhashtable is broken and we must fix it instead
of working around it in the test code!
FWIW I still haven't been able to reproduce this problem, perhaps
because my machines have too few CPUs?
So can someone please help me reproduce this? Because just loading
test_rhashtable isn't doing it.
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert(a)gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt