From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ezioGvW6019ubAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:17 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5F5B21F0A9; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:17 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [167.114.26.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70AFD1E590 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CszrM5lpXz1X1w; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:15 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1607711476; bh=zMXpTji72VLfNJFDmfo1Trn++rBqUc4kn7bDmgsiNqc=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=PSiQLQFHOmSVSEvYp3iCKABUVLUwn8GukuqVs9+72Zpq7TD/Y09ntDP8okGzRjA9j KKnwn4KXUTAMnPgoeQasb8znT0lqWEvHJYOldOVvNphrhnsa4PSM0Y6KJWPUtIAJop YuQcFCGTTZ+F8D1XRLZIv3IsZiQG5XqvYT6XJdd3Bf3knCLo2frhcu6w+gMqOK6c/D MfH9ku3M9U+yEIqaEIDLcx7wfzbojx+0YXng3cBlCd/Err74N/374Nf+2F3P7FRbai smjXL0OluwcjFv+xW0vniml2krU9pmveukkDUrJypSTIkrS+ntyyKUUkWvSrNilUkw zLmFXYQyuI9Ow== Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CszrL640Fz1X1v for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D83A2D921D; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 8u-jKpbMZoXR; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035472D90DA; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:06 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 035472D90DA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kKMlvvaNd89w; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC82D2D90D7; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:31:05 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Jeanson Cc: lttng-dev , paulmck Message-ID: <2103736312.101332.1607711465872.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <1681186936.97276.1607538587190.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <20201209181537.444048-1-mjeanson@efficios.com> <1681186936.97276.1607538587190.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [167.114.26.124] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3980 (ZimbraWebClient - FF83 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3980) Thread-Topic: bump tests thread limit to 256 Thread-Index: 00UcESq6Kf2rE9fwpl025Y04w8xMT0mt2SB3 Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH urcu] fix: bump tests thread limit to 256 X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.31 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev Reply-To: Mathieu Desnoyers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" Hi Michael, After discussion with Paul, we can go for bumping the max nr cpu limit of this test to 4096. 1536 would cover all the current hardware Paul E. McKenney is aware of. 4096 would cover all hardware he has ever received a bug report on. Can you try it out and submit an updated patch ? Thanks, Mathieu ----- On Dec 9, 2020, at 1:29 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Should I merge this temporary fix for liburcu tests, or should we go > for dynamic allocation of the array right away instead ? > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > ----- On Dec 9, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Michael Jeanson mjeanson@efficios.com wrote: > >> Machines with more than 128 CPUs are becomming more common, the proper >> fix here would be to dynamically allocate the array which we will do, >> but in the meantime bump the limit to 256 to fix the problem on a 160 >> CPUs ppc64el system where this was reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Jeanson >> Cc: Paul E. McKenney >> Change-Id: Ib3cb5d8cb4515e6f626be33c2685fa38cb081782 >> --- >> tests/common/api.h | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/common/api.h b/tests/common/api.h >> index 2b72ec5..b15e588 100644 >> --- a/tests/common/api.h >> +++ b/tests/common/api.h >> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void spin_unlock(spinlock_t *sp) >> >> typedef pthread_t thread_id_t; >> >> -#define NR_THREADS 128 >> +#define NR_THREADS 256 >> >> #define __THREAD_ID_MAP_EMPTY ((thread_id_t) 0) >> #define __THREAD_ID_MAP_WAITING ((thread_id_t) 1) >> -- >> 2.29.2 > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev