Re: [PATCH 6/6] selftests/mm: Don't fail uffd-stress if too many CPUs

[Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:48, Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20/02/25 8:33 pm, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > > This calculation divides a fixed parameter by an environment-dependent
> > > parameter i.e. the number of CPUs.
> > >
> > > The simple way to avoid machine-specific failures here is to just put a
> > > cap on the max value of the latter.
> >
> > I haven't read the test, but if nr_cpus is being computed, then this
> > value must be important to the test somehow? Would it potentially be
> > wrong to let the test run for nr_cpus != actual number of cpus?
>
> Based on my _extremely hasty_ reading, the variable is misnamed and
> it's actually a thread count not a CPU count. I can double check
> that's the case and rename it.

Oh yeah actually, it's only misnamed because I made it misnamed. So
this patch needs to rename it for sure, thanks for pointing it out.

(But yeah I upgraded my extremely hasty reading to an only hasty
reading and I still don't think this test cares about the actual CPU
topology).