Skip to content
Commit 6d029c25 authored by Oleg Nesterov's avatar Oleg Nesterov Committed by Thomas Gleixner
Browse files

selftests/timers/posix_timers: Reimplement check_timer_distribution()

check_timer_distribution() runs ten threads in a busy loop and tries to
test that the kernel distributes a process posix CPU timer signal to every
thread over time.

There is not guarantee that this is true even after commit bcb7ee79
("posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread") because
that commit only avoids waking up the sleeping process leader thread, but
that has nothing to do with the actual signal delivery.

As the signal is process wide the first thread which observes sigpending
and wins the race to lock sighand will deliver the signal. Testing shows
that this hangs on a regular base because some threads never win the race.

The comment "This primarily tests that the kernel does not favour any one."
is wrong. The kernel does favour a thread which hits the timer interrupt
when CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID expires.

Rewrite the test so it only checks that the group leader sleeping in join()
never receives SIGALRM and the thread which burns CPU cycles receives all
signals.

In older kernels which do not have commit bcb7ee79 ("posix-timers:
Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread") the test-case fails
immediately, the very 1st tick wakes the leader up. Otherwise it quickly
succeeds after 100 ticks.

CI testing wants to use newer selftest versions on stable kernels. In this
case the test is guaranteed to fail.

So check in the failure case whether the kernel version is less than v6.3
and skip the test result in that case.

[ tglx: Massaged change log, renamed the version check helper ]

Fixes: e797203f

 ("selftests/timers/posix_timers: Test delivery of signals across threads")
Signed-off-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240409133802.GD29396@redhat.com
parent c1d11fc2
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment