* [LTP] 答复: [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available
@ 2020-10-14 7:31 Chen, Hanxiao
2020-10-15 6:45 ` [LTP] " Li Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Hanxiao @ 2020-10-14 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi, Li
>???: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
>????: 2020?10?14? 14:28
>???: Xu, Yang <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>; Chen, Hanxiao <chenhx.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>??: LTP List <ltp@lists.linux.it>
>??: Re: ??: [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available
>
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:19 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>Hi Hanxiao
>
>> Hi, Yang
>>
>>> -----??????-----
>>> ???: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting
>>> use_hierarchy if not available
[snip]
>> The behavior above looks conflicting with https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt.
>Yes. Centos7 behavior is different from the documentation.
>>> So why not directly use /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy value to judge in
>>> testcase after setting 0.
>> In setup_test from memcg_lib.sh, we actually did:
>> mount -t cgroup -omemory memcg /dev/memcg
>> Then kernel will find a suitable cgroup root for us in cgroup1_mount.
>>
>> In this case, /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ would be the good choice.
>> So it's equivalent to read memory.use_hierarchy from either side.
>I understand. Only a minor suggestion, please use tabs instead of spaces
>at the beginning of the line.
>
>
>This patch looks good to me,
>Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
>@Li, I think this patch is ok, Do you have some comment about it?
>
>I'm ok to go with memory.use_hierarchy checking in the preconditioning phase.
>
>But how can you assert the default memory cgroup is mount at path: "/sys/fs/cgroup/memory", is there any possibility the default path mount at other places(for different distribution)?
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/b5fc7a89e58bcc059a3d5e4db79c481fb437de59/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c#L5768
WARN_ON(sysfs_create_mount_point(fs_kobj, "cgroup"));
So the default mount place should be /sys/fs/cgroup if distributions
did not modify these lines.
As the discussion above,
mount -t cgroup -omemory memcg /dev/memcg
kernel will find a suitable cgroup root for us.
How about reading /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy as Yang recommended instead?
Regards,
- Hanxiao
>--
>Regards,
>Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20201014/2c23546c/attachment-0001.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available
2020-10-14 7:31 [LTP] 答复: [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available Chen, Hanxiao
@ 2020-10-15 6:45 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2020-10-15 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Chen, Hanxiao <chenhx.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
*...*
>
> >@Li, I think this patch is ok, Do you have some comment about it?
>
> >
>
> >I'm ok to go with memory.use_hierarchy checking in the preconditioning
> phase.
>
> >
>
> >But how can you assert the default memory cgroup is mount at path:
> "/sys/fs/cgroup/memory", is there any possibility the default path mount at
> other places(for different distribution)?
>
>
>
>
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/b5fc7a89e58bcc059a3d5e4db79c481fb437de59/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c#L5768
>
>
>
> WARN_ON(sysfs_create_mount_point(fs_kobj, "cgroup"));
>
>
>
> So the default mount place should be /sys/fs/cgroup if distributions
>
> did not modify these lines.
>
>
>
> As the discussion above,
>
> mount -t cgroup -omemory memcg /dev/memcg
>
> kernel will find a suitable cgroup root for us.
>
>
>
> How about reading /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy as Yang recommended
> instead?
>
Sure.
But also, shouldn't we check if the '/dev/memcg' has sub-directory
before changing the memory.use_hiearchy in memcg_lib.sh?
As you noted in the description, enabling/disabling will fail if either
the cgroup already has other cgroups created below it.
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20201015/654192f6/attachment-0001.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] 答复: [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available
2020-10-13 3:19 ` Yang Xu
@ 2020-10-14 6:27 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2020-10-14 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:19 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
wrote:
> Hi Hanxiao
>
> > Hi, Yang
> >
> >> -----??????-----
> >> ???: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting
> >> use_hierarchy if not available
> >>
> >> Hi hanxiao
> >>
> >>
> >>> The precondition of this case is that we can disable use_hierarchy.
> >>> But some distributions such as CentOS 8 had enabled it in root cgroup
> >>> and hard to disabled.
> > [snip]
> >> /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy" \
> >>> + "to 0 failed"
> >>> + fi
> >>> + fi
> >> I test this patch on centos7 and testcase2 skips. On centos7(without
> installing
> >> docker), /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.use_hierarchy value is equal to 1
> and I
> >> still can disable value for /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy.
> >>
> > The behavior above looks conflicting with
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt.
> Yes. Centos7 behavior is different from the documentation.
> >> So why not directly use /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy value to judge
> in
> >> testcase after setting 0.
> > In setup_test from memcg_lib.sh, we actually did:
> > mount -t cgroup -omemory memcg /dev/memcg
> > Then kernel will find a suitable cgroup root for us in cgroup1_mount.
> >
> > In this case, /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ would be the good choice.
> > So it's equivalent to read memory.use_hierarchy from either side.
> I understand. Only a minor suggestion, please use tabs instead of spaces
> at the beginning of the line.
>
>
> This patch looks good to me,
> Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> @Li, I think this patch is ok, Do you have some comment about it?
>
I'm ok to go with memory.use_hierarchy checking in the preconditioning
phase.
But how can you assert the default memory cgroup is mount at path:
"/sys/fs/cgroup/memory", is there any possibility the default path mount at
other places(for different distribution)?
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20201014/932b3f8b/attachment.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] 答复: [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available
2020-09-21 10:53 ` [LTP] 答复: " Chen, Hanxiao
@ 2020-10-13 3:19 ` Yang Xu
2020-10-14 6:27 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yang Xu @ 2020-10-13 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Hanxiao
> Hi, Yang
>
>> -----????-----
>> ??: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting
>> use_hierarchy if not available
>>
>> Hi hanxiao
>>
>>
>>> The precondition of this case is that we can disable use_hierarchy.
>>> But some distributions such as CentOS 8 had enabled it in root cgroup
>>> and hard to disabled.
> [snip]
>> /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy" \
>>> + "to 0 failed"
>>> + fi
>>> + fi
>> I test this patch on centos7 and testcase2 skips. On centos7(without installing
>> docker), /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.use_hierarchy value is equal to 1 and I
>> still can disable value for /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy.
>>
> The behavior above looks conflicting with https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt.
Yes. Centos7 behavior is different from the documentation.
>> So why not directly use /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy value to judge in
>> testcase after setting 0.
> In setup_test from memcg_lib.sh, we actually did:
> mount -t cgroup -omemory memcg /dev/memcg
> Then kernel will find a suitable cgroup root for us in cgroup1_mount.
>
> In this case, /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ would be the good choice.
> So it's equivalent to read memory.use_hierarchy from either side.
I understand. Only a minor suggestion, please use tabs instead of spaces
at the beginning of the line.
This patch looks good to me,
Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
@Li, I think this patch is ok, Do you have some comment about it?
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> Regards,
> - Hanxiao
>> Best Regards
>> Yang Xu
>>> fi
>>>
>>> ROD mkdir "/dev/memcg/$TEST_ID"
>>> diff --git
>>> a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarchy_te
>>> st.sh
>>> b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarchy_te
>>> st.sh
>>> index 4cf6b9fc2..1439b6352 100755
>>> ---
>>> a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarchy_te
>>> st.sh
>>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarch
>>> +++ y_test.sh
>>> @@ -34,7 +34,9 @@ TST_TOTAL=3
>>> # test if one of the ancestors goes over its limit, the proces will be killed
>>> testcase_1()
>>> {
>>> - echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
>>> + if [ "$root_memory_use_hierarchy" != "1" ]; then
>>> + echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
>>> + fi
>>> echo $PAGESIZE > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>>
>>> mkdir subgroup
>>> @@ -48,6 +50,10 @@ testcase_1()
>>> # test Enabling will fail if the cgroup already has other cgroups
>>> testcase_2()
>>> {
>>> + if [ "$root_memory_use_hierarchy" = "1" ]; then
>>> + tst_resm TCONF "root cgroup has use_hierarchy enabled,
>> skip"
>>> + return
>>> + fi
>>> mkdir subgroup
>>> EXPECT_FAIL echo 1 \> memory.use_hierarchy
>>>
>>> @@ -57,7 +63,9 @@ testcase_2()
>>> # test disabling will fail if the parent cgroup has enabled hierarchy.
>>> testcase_3()
>>> {
>>> - echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
>>> + if [ "$root_memory_use_hierarchy" != "1" ]; then
>>> + echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
>>> + fi
>>> mkdir subgroup
>>> EXPECT_FAIL echo 0 \> subgroup/memory.use_hierarchy
>>>
>>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] 答复: [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available
2020-09-17 5:21 ` Yang Xu
@ 2020-09-21 10:53 ` Chen, Hanxiao
2020-10-13 3:19 ` Yang Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Hanxiao @ 2020-09-21 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi, Yang
> -----????-----
> ??: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting
> use_hierarchy if not available
>
> Hi hanxiao
>
>
> > The precondition of this case is that we can disable use_hierarchy.
> > But some distributions such as CentOS 8 had enabled it in root cgroup
> > and hard to disabled.
[snip]
> /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy" \
> > + "to 0 failed"
> > + fi
> > + fi
> I test this patch on centos7 and testcase2 skips. On centos7(without installing
> docker), /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.use_hierarchy value is equal to 1 and I
> still can disable value for /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy.
>
The behavior above looks conflicting with https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt.
> So why not directly use /dev/memcg/memory.use_hierarchy value to judge in
> testcase after setting 0.
In setup_test from memcg_lib.sh, we actually did:
mount -t cgroup -omemory memcg /dev/memcg
Then kernel will find a suitable cgroup root for us in cgroup1_mount.
In this case, /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ would be the good choice.
So it's equivalent to read memory.use_hierarchy from either side.
Regards,
- Hanxiao
>
> Best Regards
> Yang Xu
> > fi
> >
> > ROD mkdir "/dev/memcg/$TEST_ID"
> > diff --git
> > a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarchy_te
> > st.sh
> > b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarchy_te
> > st.sh
> > index 4cf6b9fc2..1439b6352 100755
> > ---
> > a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarchy_te
> > st.sh
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/functional/memcg_use_hierarch
> > +++ y_test.sh
> > @@ -34,7 +34,9 @@ TST_TOTAL=3
> > # test if one of the ancestors goes over its limit, the proces will be killed
> > testcase_1()
> > {
> > - echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
> > + if [ "$root_memory_use_hierarchy" != "1" ]; then
> > + echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
> > + fi
> > echo $PAGESIZE > memory.limit_in_bytes
> >
> > mkdir subgroup
> > @@ -48,6 +50,10 @@ testcase_1()
> > # test Enabling will fail if the cgroup already has other cgroups
> > testcase_2()
> > {
> > + if [ "$root_memory_use_hierarchy" = "1" ]; then
> > + tst_resm TCONF "root cgroup has use_hierarchy enabled,
> skip"
> > + return
> > + fi
> > mkdir subgroup
> > EXPECT_FAIL echo 1 \> memory.use_hierarchy
> >
> > @@ -57,7 +63,9 @@ testcase_2()
> > # test disabling will fail if the parent cgroup has enabled hierarchy.
> > testcase_3()
> > {
> > - echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
> > + if [ "$root_memory_use_hierarchy" != "1" ]; then
> > + echo 1 > memory.use_hierarchy
> > + fi
> > mkdir subgroup
> > EXPECT_FAIL echo 0 \> subgroup/memory.use_hierarchy
> >
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-15 6:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-14 7:31 [LTP] 答复: [PATCH] memcg_use_hierarchy_test.sh: skip setting use_hierarchy if not available Chen, Hanxiao
2020-10-15 6:45 ` [LTP] " Li Wang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-09-11 9:21 Chen Hanxiao
2020-09-17 5:21 ` Yang Xu
2020-09-21 10:53 ` [LTP] 答复: " Chen, Hanxiao
2020-10-13 3:19 ` Yang Xu
2020-10-14 6:27 ` Li Wang
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.