From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4366B0038 for ; Thu, 14 May 2015 08:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wgbhc8 with SMTP id hc8so39484420wgb.3 for ; Thu, 14 May 2015 05:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w4si15960687wjx.25.2015.05.14.05.09.27 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 May 2015 05:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 14:09:26 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: Possible bug - LTP failure for memcg Message-ID: <20150514120926.GF6799@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <55536DC9.90200@kyup.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55536DC9.90200@kyup.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed 13-05-15 18:29:13, Nikolay Borisov wrote: [...] > memcg_function_test 22 TFAIL : ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4095, > limit_in_bytes=0 > memcg_function_test 23 TFAIL : ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4097, > limit_in_bytes=4096 > memcg_function_test 24 TFAIL : ltpapicmd.c:190: input=1, > limit_in_bytes=0 Before we go and fix these test cases. Do they make any sense at all? Why should anybody even care that the limit is in page units? I do not see anything like that mentioned in the documentation. Sure having the limit in page size units makes a lot of sense from the implementation POV but should userspace care? Would something break if we change internals and allow also !page_aligned values? I have hard time to imagine that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org