On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 07:18:11PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote:
> The reclaim is triggered by memory limit in a subtree, therefore the
> testcase does not need configured protection against external reclaim.
>
> Also, correct/deduplicate respective comments
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Koutn? <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 12 ++++--------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> index 9ffacf024bbd..9d370aafd799 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup)
>
> /*
> * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> - * A memory.min = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> + * A memory.min = 0, memory.max = 200M
> * A/B memory.min = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> * A/B/C memory.min = 75M, memory.current = 50M
> * A/B/D memory.min = 25M, memory.current = 50M
> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup)
> * Usages are pagecache, but the test keeps a running
> * process in every leaf cgroup.
> * Then it creates A/G and creates a significant
> - * memory pressure in it.
> + * memory pressure in A.
> *
> * A/B memory.current ~= 50M
> * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M
> @@ -335,8 +335,6 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
> (void *)(long)fd);
> }
>
> - if (cg_write(parent[0], "memory.min", "50M"))
> - goto cleanup;
> if (cg_write(parent[1], "memory.min", "50M"))
> goto cleanup;
> if (cg_write(children[0], "memory.min", "75M"))
> @@ -404,8 +402,8 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
>
> /*
> * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> - * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> + * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M
> + * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ...
Can you, please, just remove "memory.current = ...", it's not
because obvious what "..." means here.
Other than that: Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>
Thank you!
On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:59:56 -0700 Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 07:18:11PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote:
> > The reclaim is triggered by memory limit in a subtree, therefore the
> > testcase does not need configured protection against external reclaim.
> >
> > Also, correct/deduplicate respective comments
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Koutn? <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 12 ++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> > index 9ffacf024bbd..9d370aafd799 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> > @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup)
> >
> > /*
> > * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> > - * A memory.min = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> > + * A memory.min = 0, memory.max = 200M
> > * A/B memory.min = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> > * A/B/C memory.min = 75M, memory.current = 50M
> > * A/B/D memory.min = 25M, memory.current = 50M
> > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup)
> > * Usages are pagecache, but the test keeps a running
> > * process in every leaf cgroup.
> > * Then it creates A/G and creates a significant
> > - * memory pressure in it.
> > + * memory pressure in A.
> > *
> > * A/B memory.current ~= 50M
> > * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M
> > @@ -335,8 +335,6 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
> > (void *)(long)fd);
> > }
> >
> > - if (cg_write(parent[0], "memory.min", "50M"))
> > - goto cleanup;
> > if (cg_write(parent[1], "memory.min", "50M"))
> > goto cleanup;
> > if (cg_write(children[0], "memory.min", "75M"))
> > @@ -404,8 +402,8 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
> >
> > /*
> > * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> > - * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> > - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> > + * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M
> > + * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ...
>
> Can you, please, just remove "memory.current = ...", it's not
> because obvious what "..." means here.
>
You mean this?
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c~selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg-fix
+++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
@@ -403,15 +403,14 @@ cleanup:
/*
* First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
* A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M
- * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ...
+ * A/B memory.low = 50M
* A/B/C memory.low = 75M, memory.current = 50M
* A/B/D memory.low = 25M, memory.current = 50M
* A/B/E memory.low = 0, memory.current = 50M
* A/B/F memory.low = 500M, memory.current = 0
*
* Usages are pagecache.
- * Then it creates A/G an creates a significant
- * memory pressure in it.
+ * Then it creates A/G and creates significant memory pressure in it.
*
* Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that:
* A/B memory.current ~= 50M
_
(includes gratuitous comment cleanup)
I assume your comment in
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yn6pBPq+lAXm9NG8@carbon can be addressed in a
later patch.
I'm not sure what to amke of https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon
Do we feel this series needs more work before merging it up?
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:24:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:59:56 -0700 Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 07:18:11PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote:
> > > The reclaim is triggered by memory limit in a subtree, therefore the
> > > testcase does not need configured protection against external reclaim.
> > >
> > > Also, correct/deduplicate respective comments
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Koutn? <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 12 ++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> > > index 9ffacf024bbd..9d370aafd799 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup)
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> > > - * A memory.min = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> > > + * A memory.min = 0, memory.max = 200M
> > > * A/B memory.min = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> > > * A/B/C memory.min = 75M, memory.current = 50M
> > > * A/B/D memory.min = 25M, memory.current = 50M
> > > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup)
> > > * Usages are pagecache, but the test keeps a running
> > > * process in every leaf cgroup.
> > > * Then it creates A/G and creates a significant
> > > - * memory pressure in it.
> > > + * memory pressure in A.
> > > *
> > > * A/B memory.current ~= 50M
> > > * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M
> > > @@ -335,8 +335,6 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
> > > (void *)(long)fd);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (cg_write(parent[0], "memory.min", "50M"))
> > > - goto cleanup;
> > > if (cg_write(parent[1], "memory.min", "50M"))
> > > goto cleanup;
> > > if (cg_write(children[0], "memory.min", "75M"))
> > > @@ -404,8 +402,8 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root)
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> > > - * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> > > - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> > > + * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M
> > > + * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ...
> >
> > Can you, please, just remove "memory.current = ...", it's not
> > because obvious what "..." means here.
> >
>
> You mean this?
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c~selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg-fix
> +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
> @@ -403,15 +403,14 @@ cleanup:
> /*
> * First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M
> - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ...
> + * A/B memory.low = 50M
> * A/B/C memory.low = 75M, memory.current = 50M
> * A/B/D memory.low = 25M, memory.current = 50M
> * A/B/E memory.low = 0, memory.current = 50M
> * A/B/F memory.low = 500M, memory.current = 0
> *
> * Usages are pagecache.
> - * Then it creates A/G an creates a significant
> - * memory pressure in it.
> + * Then it creates A/G and creates significant memory pressure in it.
> *
> * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that:
> * A/B memory.current ~= 50M
> _
>
> (includes gratuitous comment cleanup)
Yes, thank you!
>
> I assume your comment in
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yn6pBPq+lAXm9NG8@carbon can be addressed in a
> later patch.
>
> I'm not sure what to amke of https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon
>
> Do we feel this series needs more work before merging it up?
>
Please, go ahead with it. If anything comes up, it can be addressed later.
Thanks!
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:52:25PM -0700, Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please, go ahead with it. If anything comes up, it can be addressed later.
I hope I can still post v2 of the tests cleanups (applying feedback from
here), it's in [1] with more info there. (I sent it to a new thread
based on get_maintainers.pl).
Thanks,
Michal
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]