* [LTP] ❌ FAIL: Waiting for review: Test report for kernel 5.6.14-dbf782f.cki (stable-queue)
[not found] ` <1440024610.13546915.1590416134343.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
@ 2020-05-26 3:22 ` Li Wang
2020-05-26 6:11 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2020-05-26 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:15 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > > > s390x:
> > > > ? LTP
> > >
> > > @Li, any thoughts on hugetlb TBROKs here? I thought you said
> > > 'request_hugepages'
> > > was not supposed to be hard test requirement.
> > >
> >
> > The hugemmap05.c doesn't goes the new 'request_hugepages' way in the huge
> > page reserving. it tries to reserve 128 hpages and overcommits 192 hpages
> > in hard coding, and probably touch the memory available uplimit on s390x.
> > static long size = 128, length = 384;
> > ...
> > addr = SAFE_MMAP(ADDR, (length / 2 * hugepagesize), PROTECTION, FLAGS,
> fd,
> > 0);
> >
> > We could convert this to use the new request_hugepages API and do the
> > requested number of huge page checking at setup() to make sure the system
> > only running in a reasonable situation.
>
> Sorry, I didn't make it clear I was talking about hugemmap06. The patch is
> OK,
> since it makes both use request_hugepages API. But should we also do
> something
> with this TBROK?
>
It seems unkind and useless to exit with TBROK when failed to reserve with
80% max_hpages again. I'm thinking if it could be directly replaced by
TCONF to skip the whole test?
--- a/lib/tst_hugepage.c
+++ b/lib/tst_hugepage.c
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ unsigned long tst_request_hugepages(unsigned long hpages)
SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(PATH_NR_HPAGES, "%lu", tst_hugepages);
SAFE_FILE_SCANF(PATH_NR_HPAGES, "%lu", &val);
if (val != tst_hugepages)
- tst_brk(TBROK, "nr_hugepages = %lu, but expect %lu", val,
tst_hugepages);
+ tst_brk(TCONF, "Not enough hugepages for testing.");
tst_res(TINFO, "%lu hugepage(s) reserved", tst_hugepages);
out:
>
> tst_hugepage.c:46: BROK: nr_hugepages = 171, but expect 255
>
>
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20200526/1ba02bf6/attachment.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [LTP] ❌ FAIL: Waiting for review: Test report for kernel 5.6.14-dbf782f.cki (stable-queue)
2020-05-26 3:22 ` [LTP] ❌ FAIL: Waiting for review: Test report for kernel 5.6.14-dbf782f.cki (stable-queue) Li Wang
@ 2020-05-26 6:11 ` Jan Stancek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Stancek @ 2020-05-26 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
----- Original Message -----
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:15 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > ...
>
>
> > > > > s390x:
> > > > > ? LTP
> > > >
> > > > @Li, any thoughts on hugetlb TBROKs here? I thought you said
> > > > 'request_hugepages'
> > > > was not supposed to be hard test requirement.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The hugemmap05.c doesn't goes the new 'request_hugepages' way in the huge
> > > page reserving. it tries to reserve 128 hpages and overcommits 192 hpages
> > > in hard coding, and probably touch the memory available uplimit on s390x.
> > > static long size = 128, length = 384;
> > > ...
> > > addr = SAFE_MMAP(ADDR, (length / 2 * hugepagesize), PROTECTION, FLAGS,
> > fd,
> > > 0);
> > >
> > > We could convert this to use the new request_hugepages API and do the
> > > requested number of huge page checking at setup() to make sure the system
> > > only running in a reasonable situation.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't make it clear I was talking about hugemmap06. The patch is
> > OK,
> > since it makes both use request_hugepages API. But should we also do
> > something
> > with this TBROK?
> >
>
> It seems unkind and useless to exit with TBROK when failed to reserve with
> 80% max_hpages again. I'm thinking if it could be directly replaced by
> TCONF to skip the whole test?
I think it can fail even when request is less than 80%, when memory is too fragmented.
I agree with TCONF, but I'd keep numbers (val, tst_hugepages) in output, so we know
how close it was to the requested number.
>
> --- a/lib/tst_hugepage.c
> +++ b/lib/tst_hugepage.c
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ unsigned long tst_request_hugepages(unsigned long hpages)
> SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(PATH_NR_HPAGES, "%lu", tst_hugepages);
> SAFE_FILE_SCANF(PATH_NR_HPAGES, "%lu", &val);
> if (val != tst_hugepages)
> - tst_brk(TBROK, "nr_hugepages = %lu, but expect %lu", val,
> tst_hugepages);
> + tst_brk(TCONF, "Not enough hugepages for testing.");
>
> tst_res(TINFO, "%lu hugepage(s) reserved", tst_hugepages);
> out:
>
>
> >
> > tst_hugepage.c:46: BROK: nr_hugepages = 171, but expect 255
> >
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Li Wang
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-26 6:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cki.5639E3C778.X5N9P4R7GB@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <2102236949.13452256.1590328678642.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <CAEemH2dNB3Ktt5LeBLxMKekv7-gj4d=EkQouYmO1SgbyzjLEaw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <1440024610.13546915.1590416134343.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
2020-05-26 3:22 ` [LTP] ❌ FAIL: Waiting for review: Test report for kernel 5.6.14-dbf782f.cki (stable-queue) Li Wang
2020-05-26 6:11 ` Jan Stancek
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.