[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608311612190.89744@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/vm: add test for mlock() when areas are
intersected.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, wei.guo.simon@...il.com wrote:
> From: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>
>
> This patch adds mlock() test for multiple invocation on
> the same address area, and verify it doesn't mess the
> rlimit mlock limitation.
>
Thanks for expanding mlock testing. I'm wondering if you are interested
in more elaborate testing that doesn't only check what you are fixing,
such as mlock(p + x, 40k) where x is < 20k?
Would you also be willing to make sure that the rlimit is actually
enforced when it's expected to?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists