From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] mem: make use of save_restore to simplify code
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:05:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230622100559.GC482307@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2dQwL10cg3M8Pe3e=Q6X8nmVKtkpSZdv7X6ZFh4gFUNgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Li,
...
> > Also third parameter of set_sys_tune() (check) is 0.
> The checks inside set_sys_tuen() can NOT guarantee the
> "overcommit_memory" knob is exist or not, it only examines if the
> value was being set correctly, because set_sys_tune has first use
> SAFE_FILE_PRINTF which will TBROK directly when the knob non-exist.
Ah, thanks for correcting me.
> > > - if (old_overcommit_ratio != -1)
> > > - set_sys_tune("overcommit_ratio", old_overcommit_ratio, 0);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > static void overcommit_memory_test(void)
> > > {
> > > @@ -269,6 +255,10 @@ static struct tst_test test = {
> > > {}
> > > },
> > > .setup = setup,
> > > - .cleanup = cleanup,
> > > .test_all = overcommit_memory_test,
> > > + .save_restore = (const struct tst_path_val[]) {
> > > + {"/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory", NULL, TST_SR_TBROK},
> > > + {"/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio", NULL, TST_SR_TBROK},
> > => shouldn't be here TST_SR_TCONF instead of TST_SR_TBROK?
> It doesn't matter, I indeed consider this before, but after looking
> through the rest mm tests they all use the function get|set_sys_tune()
> which checks the knob mandatorily and run smoothly for past
> many years and nobody ever complains about that.
+1
> So I think it's safe to convert this one using TBROK too, it essentially
> has no difference from other oom-tests. 'overcommit_ratio' and
> 'overcommit_memory' are quite basic on Linux distribution.
+1
=> go ahead and merge.
> > I also wonder if testcases/kernel/mem/tunable/max_map_count.c
> > can replace old_max_map_count with .save_restore (with TST_SR_TCONF).
> +1
> > Also testcases/kernel/mem/tunable/min_free_kbytes.c could use
> > .save_restore on panic_on_oom and min_free_kbytes, right?
> No, 'panic_on_oom' is a different scenario, min_free_kbytes.c test
> just checks if that was being set to 1, if yes, we have to skip the whole
> test unconditionally in case of the system occurs panic.
+1
> > But these two can be done as a separate effort.
> Yes, the rest two suggestions sound good.
I see you already post a patch, thx!
Kind regards,
Petr
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-22 10:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-01 10:51 [LTP] [PATCH] mem: make use of save_restore to simplify code Li Wang
2023-06-21 8:35 ` Petr Vorel
2023-06-22 8:53 ` Li Wang
2023-06-22 10:05 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2023-06-23 1:34 ` Li Wang
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=20230622100559.GC482307@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=liwang@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).