linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: 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, void@manifault.com
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:57:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220422155728.3055914-2-void@manifault.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220422155728.3055914-1-void@manifault.com>

In test_memcg_min() and test_memcg_low(), there is an array of four sibling
cgroups. All but one of these sibling groups does a 50MB allocation, and
the group that does no allocation is the third of four in the array.  This
is not a problem per se, but makes it a bit tricky to do some assertions in
test_memcg_low(), as we want to make assertions on the siblings based on
whether or not they performed allocations. Having a static index before
which all groups have performed an allocation makes this cleaner.

This patch therefore reorders the sibling groups so that the group that
performs no allocations is the last in the array. A follow-on patch will
leverage this to fix a bug in the test that incorrectly asserts that a
sibling group that had performed an allocation, but only had protection
from its parent, will not observe any memory.events.low events during
reclaim.

Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
index 6b5259394e68..aa50eaa8b157 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
 		if (cg_create(children[i]))
 			goto cleanup;
 
-		if (i == 2)
+		if (i > 2)
 			continue;
 
 		cg_run_nowait(children[i], alloc_pagecache_50M_noexit,
@@ -336,9 +336,9 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
 		goto cleanup;
 	if (cg_write(children[1], "memory.min", "25M"))
 		goto cleanup;
-	if (cg_write(children[2], "memory.min", "500M"))
+	if (cg_write(children[2], "memory.min", "0"))
 		goto cleanup;
-	if (cg_write(children[3], "memory.min", "0"))
+	if (cg_write(children[3], "memory.min", "500M"))
 		goto cleanup;
 
 	attempts = 0;
@@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
 	if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 20))
 		goto cleanup;
 
-	if (!values_close(c[2], 0, 1))
+	if (c[3] != 0)
 		goto cleanup;
 
 	if (!cg_run(parent[2], alloc_anon, (void *)MB(170)))
@@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root)
 		if (cg_create(children[i]))
 			goto cleanup;
 
-		if (i == 2)
+		if (i > 2)
 			continue;
 
 		if (cg_run(children[i], alloc_pagecache_50M, (void *)(long)fd))
@@ -491,9 +491,9 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root)
 		goto cleanup;
 	if (cg_write(children[1], "memory.low", "25M"))
 		goto cleanup;
-	if (cg_write(children[2], "memory.low", "500M"))
+	if (cg_write(children[2], "memory.low", "0"))
 		goto cleanup;
-	if (cg_write(children[3], "memory.low", "0"))
+	if (cg_write(children[3], "memory.low", "500M"))
 		goto cleanup;
 
 	if (cg_run(parent[2], alloc_anon, (void *)MB(148)))
@@ -511,7 +511,7 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root)
 	if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 20))
 		goto cleanup;
 
-	if (!values_close(c[2], 0, 1))
+	if (c[3] != 0)
 		goto cleanup;
 
 	if (cg_run(parent[2], alloc_anon, (void *)MB(166))) {
-- 
2.30.2



  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-22 15:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-22 15:57 [PATCH 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet
2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet [this message]
2022-04-22 23:04   ` [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 11:30     ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:19       ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 15:33         ` David Vernet
2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() David Vernet
2022-04-22 23:06   ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 11:33     ` David Vernet
2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 3/5] cgroup: Account for memory_localevents in test_memcg_oom_group_leaf_events() David Vernet
2022-04-22 23:14   ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 11:36     ` David Vernet
2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() David Vernet
2022-04-22 23:50   ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 11:50     ` David Vernet
2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: Fix racy check in alloc_pagecache_max_30M() helper function David Vernet
2022-04-22 23:56   ` Roman Gushchin

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=20220422155728.3055914-2-void@manifault.com \
    --to=void@manifault.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 \
    /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