Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194810-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:29:38 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <pabeni@redhat.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Alexander Duyck
 <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/13] mm: page_frag: add a test module for
 page_frag
Message-ID: <20240529172938.3a83784d@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240528125604.63048-2-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
References: <20240528125604.63048-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
	<20240528125604.63048-2-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:55:51 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> Basing on the lib/objpool.c, change it to something like a
> ptrpool, so that we can utilize that to test the correctness
> and performance of the page_frag.
> 
> The testing is done by ensuring that the fragments allocated
> from a frag_frag_cache instance is pushed into a ptrpool
> instance in a kthread binded to a specified cpu, and a kthread
> binded to a specified cpu will pop the fragmemt from the

fragment

> ptrpool and free the fragmemt.
> 
> We may refactor out the common part between objpool and ptrpool
> if this ptrpool thing turns out to be helpful for other place.

Is this test actually meaningfully testing page_frag or rather
the objpool construct and the scheduler? :S