linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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