X-Git-Url: https://pintos-os.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=blobdiff_plain;f=TODO;h=108a05d97539c835445774c91bcc9773a02de425;hb=78b4c003bae8960e670fb8ff02a58bf9323594e4;hp=10c5d650626ab40128868de4230b16873a45ea12;hpb=9d5e5047fe7fd607133242ab306c9df9e1b3a6bc;p=pintos-anon diff --git a/TODO b/TODO index 10c5d65..108a05d 100644 --- a/TODO +++ b/TODO @@ -1,11 +1,135 @@ -*- text -*- +* In grading scripts, warn when a fault is caused by an attempt to + write to the kernel text segment. (Among other things we need to + explain that "text" means "code".) + * Reconsider command line arg style--confuses everyone. * Internal tests. -* Add serial input support. Also, modify tests to redirect input from - /dev/null, to avoid stray keystrokes getting sent into the VM. +* Godmar: Introduce memory leak robustness tests - both for the + well-behaved as well as the mis-behaved case - that tests that the + kernel handles low-mem conditions well. + +* Godmar: Another area is concurrency. I noticed that I had passed all + tests with bochs 2.2.1 (in reproducibility mode). Then I ran them + with qemu and hit two deadlocks (one of them in rox-*, + incidentally). After fixing those deadlocks, I upgraded to bochs + 2.2.5 and hit yet another deadlock in reproducibility mode that + didn't show up in 2.2.1. All in all, a standard grading run would + have missed 3 deadlocks in my code. I'm not sure how to exploit + that for grading - either run with qemu n times (n=2 or 3), or run + it with bochs and a set of -j parameters. Some of which could be + known to the students, some not, depending on preference. (I ported + the -j patch to bochs 2.2.5 - + http://people.cs.vt.edu/~gback/pintos/bochs-2.2.5.jitter.patch but I + have to admit I never tried it so I don't know if it would have + uncovered the deadlocks that qemu and the switch to 2.2.5 + uncovered.) + +* Godmar: There is also the option to require students to develop test + workloads themselves, for instance, to demonstrate the effectiveness + of a particular algorithm (page eviction & buffer cache replacement + come to mind.) This could involve a problem of the form: develop a + workload that you cover well, and develop a "worst-case" load where + you algorithm performs poorly, and show the results of your + quantitative evaluation in your report - this could then be part of + their test score. + +* Threads project: + + - Godmar: + + >> Describe a potential race in thread_set_priority() and explain how + >> your implementation avoids it. Can you use a lock to avoid this race? + + I'm not sure what you're getting at here: + If changing the priority of a thread involves accessing the ready + list, then of course there's a race with interrupt handlers and locks + can't be used to resolve it. + + Changing the priority however also involves a race with respect to + accessing a thread's "priority" field - this race is with respect to + other threads that attempt to donate priority to the thread that's + changing its priority. Since this is a thread-to-thread race, I would + tend to believe that locks could be used, although I'm not certain. [ + I should point out, though, that lock_acquire currently disables + interrupts - the purpose of which I had doubted in an earlier email, + since sema_down() sufficiently establishes mutual exclusion. Taking + priority donation into account, disabling interrupts prevents the race + for the priority field, assuming the priority field of each thread is + always updated with interrupts disabled. ] + + What answer are you looking for for this design document question? + + - Godmar: + + >> Did any ambiguities in the scheduler specification make values in the + >> table uncertain? If so, what rule did you use to resolve them? Does + >> this match the behavior of your scheduler? + + My guess is that you're referring to the fact the scheduler + specification does not prescribe any order in which the priorities of + all threads are updated, so if multiple threads end up with the same + priority, it doesn't say which one to pick. ("round-robin" order + would not apply here.) + + Is that correct? + + - Godmar: + + One of my groups implemented priority donation with these data + structures in synch.cc: + --- + struct value + { + struct list_elem elem; /* List element. */ + int value; /* Item value. */ + }; + + static struct value values[10]; + static int start = 10; + static int numNest = 0; + --- + In their implementation, the "elem" field in their "struct value" is + not even used. + + The sad part is that they've passed all tests that are currently in + the Pintos base with this implementation. (They do fail the additional + tests I added priority-donate-sema & priority-donate-multiple2.) + + Another group managed to pass all tests with this construct: + --- + struct lock + { + struct thread *holder; /* Thread holding lock (for debugging). */ + struct semaphore semaphore; /* Binary semaphore controlling access. */ + //************************************* + int pri_prev; + int pri_delta; //Used for Priority Donation + /**************************************************/ + }; + --- + where "pri_delta" keeps track of "priority deltas." They even pass + priority-donate-multiple2. + + I think we'll need a test where a larger number of threads & locks + simultaneously exercise priority donation to weed out those + implementations. + + It may also be a good idea to use non-constant deltas for the low, + medium, and high priority threads in the tests - otherwise, adding a + "priority delta" might give - by coincidence - the proper priority for + a thread. + + - Godmar: Another thing: one group passed all tests even though they + wake up all waiters on a lock_release(), rather than just + one. Since there's never more than one waiter in our tests, they + didn't fail anything. Another possible TODO item - this could be + part a series of "regression tests" that check that they didn't + break basic functionality in project 1. I don't think this would + be insulting to the students. * Userprog project: @@ -34,8 +158,43 @@ variety of activities and notice leaks by checking the kernel memory statistics. + - Godmar: is there a test that tests that they properly kill a process that + attempts to access an invalid address in user code, e.g. *(void**)0 = + 42;? + + It seems all of the robustness tests deal with bad pointers passed to + system calls (at least judging from test/userprog/Rubric.robustness), + but none deals with bad accesses by user code, or I am missing + something. + + ps: I found tests/vm/pt-bad-addr, which is in project 3 only, though. + + For completeness, we should probably check read/write/jump to unmapped + user virtual address and to mapped kernel address, for a total of 6 + cases. I wrote up some tests, see + http://people.cs.vt.edu/~gback/pintos/bad-pointers/ + - process_death test needs improvement + - Godmar: In the wait() tests, there's currently no test that tests + that a process can only wait for its own children. There's only + one test that tests that wait() on an invalid pid returns -1 (or + kills the process), but no test where a valid pid is used that is + not a child of the current process. + + The current tests also do not ensure that both scenarios (parent waits + first vs. child exits first) are exercised. In this context, I'm + wondering if we should add a sleep() system call that would export + timer_sleep() to user processes; this would allow the construction of + such a test. It would also make it easier to construct a test for the + valid-pid, but not-a-child scenario. + + As in Project 4, the baseline implementation of timer_sleep() should + suffice, so this would not necessarily require basing Project 2 on + Project 1. [ A related thought: IMO it would not be entirely + unreasonable to require timer_sleep() and priority scheduling sans + donation from Project 1 working for subsequent projects. ] + * VM project: - Godmar: Get rid of mmap syscall, add sbrk. @@ -43,6 +202,16 @@ - Godmar: page-linear, page-shuffle VM tests do not use enough memory to force eviction. Should increase memory consumption. + - Godmar: fix the page* tests to require swapping + + - Godmar: make sure the filesystem fails if not properly + concurrency-protected in project 3. + + - Godmar: Another area in which tests could be created are for + project 3: tests that combine mmap with a paging workload to see + their kernel pages properly while mmapping pages - I don't think + the current tests test that, do they? + * Filesys project: - Need a better way to measure performance improvement of buffer @@ -50,11 +219,23 @@ cache--likely, Bochs doesn't simulate a disk with a realistic speed. - - Do we check that non-empty directories cannot be removed? + (Perhaps we should count disk reads and writes, not time.) - Need lots more tests. - - Add FS persistence test(s). + - Detect implementations that represent the cwd as a string, by + removing a directory that is the cwd of another process, then + creating a new directory of the same name and putting some files + in it, then checking whether the process that had it as cwd sees + them. + + - dir-rm-cwd should have a related test that uses a separate process + to try to pin the directory as its cwd. + + - Godmar: I'm not sure if I mentioned that already, but I passed all + tests for the filesys project without having implemented inode + deallocation. A test is needed that checks that blocks are + reclaimed when files are deleted. - Godmar: I'm in the middle of project 4, I've started by implementing a buffer cache and plugging it into the existing @@ -85,6 +266,11 @@ test workload might not force any cache replacement, so the eviction strategy doesn't matter.) + - Godmar: I haven't analyzed the tests for project 4 yet, but I'm + wondering if the fairness requirements your specification has for + readers/writers are covered in the tests or not. + + * Documentation: - Add "Digging Deeper" sections that describe the nitty-gritty x86