From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
To: zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
mhocko@kernel.org, mkoutny@suse.com, muchun.song@linux.dev,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
shuah@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, leon.huangfu@shopee.com,
Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: cgroup: make test_memcg_sock robust against delayed sock stats
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:27:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251119122758.85610-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251119105216.1675608-1-zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 18:52:16 +0800, Guopeng Zhang wrote:
> test_memcg_sock() currently requires that memory.stat's "sock " counter
> is exactly zero immediately after the TCP server exits. On a busy system
> this assumption is too strict:
>
> - Socket memory may be freed with a small delay (e.g. RCU callbacks).
> - memcg statistics are updated asynchronously via the rstat flushing
> worker, so the "sock " value in memory.stat can stay non-zero for a
> short period of time even after all socket memory has been uncharged.
>
> As a result, test_memcg_sock() can intermittently fail even though socket
> memory accounting is working correctly.
>
> Make the test more robust by polling memory.stat for the "sock " counter
> and allowing it some time to drop to zero instead of checking it only
> once. If the counter does not become zero within the timeout, the test
> still fails as before.
>
> On my test system, running test_memcontrol 50 times produced:
>
> - Before this patch: 6/50 runs passed.
> - After this patch: 50/50 runs passed.
Good catch! Thanks!
With more CPU cores, updates may be distributed across cores, making it
slower to reach the per-CPU flush threshold, IIUC :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Guopeng Zhang <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> .../selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> index 4e1647568c5b..86d9981cddd8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> @@ -1384,6 +1384,8 @@ static int test_memcg_sock(const char *root)
> int bind_retries = 5, ret = KSFT_FAIL, pid, err;
> unsigned short port;
> char *memcg;
> + long sock_post = -1;
> + int i, retries = 30;
>
> memcg = cg_name(root, "memcg_test");
> if (!memcg)
> @@ -1432,7 +1434,27 @@ static int test_memcg_sock(const char *root)
> if (cg_read_long(memcg, "memory.current") < 0)
> goto cleanup;
>
> - if (cg_read_key_long(memcg, "memory.stat", "sock "))
> + /*
> + * memory.stat is updated asynchronously via the memcg rstat
> + * flushing worker, so the "sock " counter may stay non-zero
> + * for a short period of time after the TCP connection is
> + * closed and all socket memory has been uncharged.
> + *
> + * Poll memory.stat for up to 3 seconds and require that the
> + * "sock " counter eventually drops to zero.
It might be worth mentioning that the current periodic rstat flush happens
every 2 seconds (#define FLUSH_TIME (2UL*HZ)). Adding this context to the
comment would explain why the 3-second timeout was chosen ;)
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < retries; i++) {
> + sock_post = cg_read_key_long(memcg, "memory.stat", "sock ");
> + if (sock_post < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + if (!sock_post)
> + break;
> +
> + usleep(100 * 1000); /* 100ms */
Nit: It would be better to define the retry count and interval as macros
(e.g., MAX_RETRIES, WAIT_INTERVAL) to avoid magic numbers and make the 3s
timeout calculation explicit.
> + }
> +
> + if (sock_post)
> goto cleanup;
>
> ret = KSFT_PASS;
Thanks,
Lance
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-19 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-19 10:52 Guopeng Zhang
2025-11-19 12:27 ` Lance Yang [this message]
2025-11-20 2:11 ` Guopeng Zhang
2025-11-20 5:39 ` Leon Huang Fu
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=20251119122758.85610-1-ioworker0@gmail.com \
--to=ioworker0@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=leon.huangfu@shopee.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn \
/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