From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D89C433EF for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B199E6B0073; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AA2636B0074; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:30:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 944726B0075; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:30:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.26]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806666B0073 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC6C21566 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:30:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79387926282.02.8F41024 Received: from mail-qk1-f181.google.com (mail-qk1-f181.google.com [209.85.222.181]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5451A0022 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f181.google.com with SMTP id b68so7589758qkc.4 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:30:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=v+hm7gQVZ3AvhLOPtEZQpwUGWPY5yjYTJl2KFpAuyRI=; b=LchVopzy+dwxXFgMphf8LJWL6w9HRbpAozL8aCxSDLm+CEiYctyfUbYkNdyDLTa1F4 YWvnTyq0+HSRoY5nKUuvizSbabP8LjngKQYRTGZvJk1hv/mJzx7sqGegYOhqVStnFFYU dWikL8cjArWMyjaLXkJgwOjlO7/nArbvR9OYSes95yxpBtinHbm1XO+ZbWWdEWcj7M4D ov03GwZtAmp4Grt+NLiolKlNAr21LgeVblPe0pnZyKtX+cdQvFtHcvMYn9MOa0f4oMag qJMvbnpq0BZ2beP15MhJeIbE+3N9kGfFdhTW73tCG+4siL1ixmpNn6p9NX7W6Iv4LLgh h0rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vC8atgpEbXEjTdqUD0qN9nmlhPR7bAVCFTX1TJDpStA2+dGXH XKWlRFrQuH4Dk2nWTQzdhGI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyL5qHhE+Rq8ng4FXgO46xS2udtOcYBgNIw2VO/z6o0ZNxbHjowlCxBnPGa+DV/Djz80tXa1A== X-Received: by 2002:a37:b141:0:b0:69b:ea55:b20e with SMTP id a62-20020a37b141000000b0069bea55b20emr5354820qkf.316.1650713439772; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dev0025.ash9.facebook.com (fwdproxy-ash-010.fbsv.net. [2a03:2880:20ff:a::face:b00c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2-20020a05620a06c200b0069ea498aec7sm2199801qky.16.2022.04.23.04.30.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:30:37 -0700 From: David Vernet To: Roman Gushchin Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests Message-ID: <20220423113037.gnfysktiuzmfnpmp@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com> References: <20220422155728.3055914-1-void@manifault.com> <20220422155728.3055914-2-void@manifault.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20211029 X-Stat-Signature: 5izszez956sar86jdrddwtnooqxoznwj Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of dcvernet@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dcvernet@gmail.com; dmarc=none X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A5451A0022 X-HE-Tag: 1650713437-55867 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 04:04:15PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > Thanks for the reviews on this patchset, Roman. FYI I think Andrew already merged these patches to the -mm tree. I'll send out a follow-on patch that fixes everything you pointed out, both here and on the other patches in the set. > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 08:57:25AM -0700, David Vernet wrote: > > 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. > > It makes the comment explaining the test just above the test_memcg_min() > function obsolete. Please, fix it too. Thanks for catching that. I'll fix the comment both in test_memcg_min() and test_memcg_low() when I send out that follow-on patch.