Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] posix-timers: make it configurable
From: Nicolas Pitre <hidden>
Date: 2016-11-08 18:19:29
Also in:
linux-kbuild, lkml
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, John Stultz wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
One spot of concern is that the tools/testing/selftests/timers/posix_timers.c test hangs testing virtual itimers. Looking through the code I'm not seeing where an error case is missed. The strace looks like: ... write(1, "Testing posix timers. False nega"..., 66Testing posix timers. False negative may happen on CPU execution ) = 66 write(1, "based timers if other threads ru"..., 48based timers if other threads run on the CPU... ) = 48 write(1, "Check itimer virtual... ", 24Check itimer virtual... ) = 24 rt_sigaction(SIGVTALRM, {0x400a80, [VTALRM], SA_RESTORER|SA_RESTART, 0x7fb73306ccb0}, {SIG_DFL, [], 0}, 8) = 0 gettimeofday({1478710402, 937476}, NULL) = 0 setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={2, 0}}, NULL) = 0 <Hang> Where as with posix timers enabled: ... write(1, "Testing posix timers. False nega"..., 138Testing posix timers. False negative may happen on CPU execution based timers if other threads run on the CPU... Check itimer virtual... ) = 138 rt_sigaction(SIGVTALRM, {0x400a80, [VTALRM], SA_RESTORER|SA_RESTART, 0x7f231ba8ccb0}, {SIG_DFL, [], 0}, 8) = 0 gettimeofday({1478626751, 904856}, NULL) = 0 setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={2, 0}}, NULL) = 0--- SIGVTALRM {si_signo=SIGVTALRM, si_code=SI_KERNEL} ---rt_sigreturn() = 0
I'll have a look.
So I suspect you were a little too aggressive with the #ifdefs around the itimers/signal code, or we need to make sure we return an error on the setitimer ITIMER_VIRTUAL case as well.
Well, it seemed to me that with POSIX_TIMERS=n, all the code that would set up that signal is gone, so there was no point keeping the code to deliver it. Now... would it make more sense to remove itimer support as well when POSIX_TIMERS=n? The same reasoning would apply. Nicolas