On 08/28/15 at 12:28pm, Phil Sutter wrote:
After adding cond_resched() calls to threadfunc(), a surprisingly
high
rate of insert failures occurred probably due to table resizes getting a
better chance to run in background. To not soften up the remaining
tests, retry inserts until they either succeed or fail permanently.
Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil(a)nwl.cc>
---
lib/test_rhashtable.c | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_rhashtable.c b/lib/test_rhashtable.c
index 63654e3..093cf84 100644
--- a/lib/test_rhashtable.c
+++ b/lib/test_rhashtable.c
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static int thread_lookup_test(struct thread_data *tdata)
static int threadfunc(void *data)
{
- int i, step, err = 0, insert_fails = 0;
+ int i, step, err = 0, retries = 0;
struct thread_data *tdata = data;
up(&prestart_sem);
@@ -253,21 +253,22 @@ static int threadfunc(void *data)
for (i = 0; i < entries; i++) {
tdata->objs[i].value = (tdata->id << 16) | i;
+insert_retry:
cond_resched();
err = rhashtable_insert_fast(&ht, &tdata->objs[i].node,
test_rht_params);
if (err == -ENOMEM || err == -EBUSY) {
- tdata->objs[i].value = TEST_INSERT_FAIL;
- insert_fails++;
+ retries++;
+ goto insert_retry;
Is it safe to retry indefinitely on ENOMEM? Retrying on EBUSY is
definitely an improvement and we should do the same in the non
threaded test as well.