[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160901071354.GA3306@simonLocalRHEL7.x64>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:14:52 +0800
From: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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.
Hi David,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 04:14:14PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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?
I'd like to do so.
Let me think more for the comprehensive testing. If you have any other
test cases in mind, please let me know.
Thanks,
- Simon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists