Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp193352imn; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:34:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELukd98E1nmcIczvPTawTAkNHPMmiCVNdfJRzZpaOmQeSJ4NIMUkfGJV5eqthklo6v2ZtJhu X-Received: by 10.98.227.16 with SMTP id g16mr20205105pfh.171.1521941651692; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:34:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1521941651; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=iG8c3Njz2eDsO6pZ7OZK0dgfM4h9h9yqux/T5WM90a2bDZtodi88+4RwkzIiaTYUSY whQKOy+Acd40i9mJZiwX/G700M27G45kOP83gntiJHQ1FoFZ2URH5FoX4i63XrlPFkEr X+eLgkgziUgMUpRMZ0bIaUg0raTA70DDu+ZKUNzzdGCdKIhITk+uaVL+VAcNaJKcjK0s rZpyNKwI6UtHmLkjyozLWEqBGQ1jPR2n1a/aSFYpqpgsd9UJvZdnAl1ayBa/Y1CZrWPp JnZuVNYePH/wvtq8YYOyOvEGRs+tznJlZX8GyN1hv4kKRUcaUCBcXv5Xn5fg79GLjx1h W42A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=upWrBCHIV0xmQrs2oxOwd21m6GhYe3GmeD21AgjJvOQ=; b=cuPb85PlLqowhDvqGeMqFoJseFfzTv0EVaAUryJrIFw4o7k8bp3vQiwDPGEgCXPklt YuQ7qBGmneWbjDwD7P0iERe43fibrNMsh8mpFfRVa7rhOM+bYu7svLrQ58dFThCo5HYe wnZ1LXh6o+qvCR6wORb32G4MRQVzXqdDiybRO96FaKBF1aJgvLXpLGwYUzmOJVvF9TFr Dwu1J7ESGBCPqeu1eRN+w2LUq5Hu/aohfXtGfXVs+hT4cNJkZHqRRdRXBKr9WHTCfscS cuUIYhWPmB3tLCpsBy+AoVxQ+rnjtAmuQIQI40oIBCEvB8u8gfoBOQzOdU8os0Bk+ohw 26rw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s126si8013282pgc.477.2018.03.24.18.33.57; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753144AbeCYBdF (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:33:05 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([194.213.3.17]:30662 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752317AbeCYBdD (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:33:03 -0400 Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1E24E17659E2F; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:32:59 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.122.225.51] (10.122.225.51) by smtpsuk.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:32:57 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] Pmalloc selftest To: Matthew Wilcox CC: , , , , , , , , References: <20180313214554.28521-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180313214554.28521-7-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180314122512.GF29631@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:32:57 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180314122512.GF29631@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.122.225.51] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 14/03/18 14:25, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:45:52PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote: >> Add basic self-test functionality for pmalloc. > > Here're some additional tests for your test-suite: > > for (i = 1; i; i *= 2) > pzalloc(pool, i - 1, GFP_KERNEL); > Ok, I have almost finished the rewrite. I still have to address this comment. When I run the test, eventually the system runs out of memory, it keeps getting allocation errors from vmalloc, until i finally overflows and becomes 0. Am I supposed to do something about it? If pmalloc receives a request that the vmalloc backend cannot satisfy, I would prefer that vmalloc itself produces the warning and pmalloc returns NULL. This doesn't look like a test case that one can leave always enabled in a build, but maybe I'm missing the point. -- igor