From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 19:04:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220512170410.GA16096@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220423155619.3669555-1-void@manifault.com>
Hello.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 08:56:15AM -0700, David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c contains a set of
> testcases which validate expected behavior of the cgroup memory controller.
> Roman Gushchin recently sent out a patchset that fixed a few issues in the
> test.
Link here
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220415000133.3955987-1-roman.gushchin@linux.dev/.
> This patchset continues that effort by fixing a few more issues that
> were causing non-deterministic failures in the suite.
Are the Roman's patches merged anywhere? (I ran into some issues when I
was rebasing your (David's) series on top of master.) I'd like to put
all sensible patches in one series or stack on existing branch (if
there's any).
For possible v3 of this series, I did:
- dropped the patch that allows non-zero memory.events:low for a sibling with
memory.low=0 when mounted with memory_recursiveprot (the case needs more
discussion),
- added few more cleanups, convenience for debugging,
- fixed comments in the first patch.
Pushed here [1] before properly sending the v3 for discussion.
Thanks,
Michal
[1] https://github.com/Werkov/linux/commits/cgroup-ml/memory.low-overreclaim-var2
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>
To: David Vernet <void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org,
tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org,
mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 19:04:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220512170410.GA16096@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220423155619.3669555-1-void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org>
Hello.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 08:56:15AM -0700, David Vernet <void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c contains a set of
> testcases which validate expected behavior of the cgroup memory controller.
> Roman Gushchin recently sent out a patchset that fixed a few issues in the
> test.
Link here
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220415000133.3955987-1-roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org/.
> This patchset continues that effort by fixing a few more issues that
> were causing non-deterministic failures in the suite.
Are the Roman's patches merged anywhere? (I ran into some issues when I
was rebasing your (David's) series on top of master.) I'd like to put
all sensible patches in one series or stack on existing branch (if
there's any).
For possible v3 of this series, I did:
- dropped the patch that allows non-zero memory.events:low for a sibling with
memory.low=0 when mounted with memory_recursiveprot (the case needs more
discussion),
- added few more cleanups, convenience for debugging,
- fixed comments in the first patch.
Pushed here [1] before properly sending the v3 for discussion.
Thanks,
Michal
[1] https://github.com/Werkov/linux/commits/cgroup-ml/memory.low-overreclaim-var2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-12 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-23 15:56 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests David Vernet
2022-04-26 1:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-26 1:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-27 14:09 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-27 14:09 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-29 1:03 ` David Vernet
2022-04-29 1:03 ` David Vernet
2022-04-29 9:26 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-29 9:26 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-06 16:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-06 16:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-09 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-09 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-10 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-10 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-10 17:43 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-10 17:43 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-11 17:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-11 17:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-12 17:27 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:27 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] cgroup: Account for memory_localevents in test_memcg_oom_group_leaf_events() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] cgroup: Fix racy check in alloc_pagecache_max_30M() helper function David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:04 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2022-05-12 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:30 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:30 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:44 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:44 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests: memcg: Fix compilation Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 18:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 19:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 19:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:42 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:42 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:54 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:54 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-18 15:54 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests: memcg: Remove protection from top level memcg Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 18:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 0:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-18 0:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-18 0:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 0:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:44 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-18 15:44 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 19:14 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 19:14 ` David Vernet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220512170410.GA16096@blackbody.suse.cz \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.