[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0e447b3-4ba7-239e-6550-64de7721ad28@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:21:14 -0700
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
libhugetlbfs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs, elf: drop MAP_FIXED usage from elf_map
Just a quick heads up. I noticed a change in libhugetlbfs testing starting
with v4.17-rc1.
V4.16 libhugetlbfs test results
********** TEST SUMMARY
* 2M
* 32-bit 64-bit
* Total testcases: 110 113
* Skipped: 0 0
* PASS: 105 111
* FAIL: 0 0
* Killed by signal: 4 1
* Bad configuration: 1 1
* Expected FAIL: 0 0
* Unexpected PASS: 0 0
* Test not present: 0 0
* Strange test result: 0 0
**********
v4.17-rc1 (and later) libhugetlbfs test results
********** TEST SUMMARY
* 2M
* 32-bit 64-bit
* Total testcases: 110 113
* Skipped: 0 0
* PASS: 98 111
* FAIL: 0 0
* Killed by signal: 11 1
* Bad configuration: 1 1
* Expected FAIL: 0 0
* Unexpected PASS: 0 0
* Test not present: 0 0
* Strange test result: 0 0
**********
I traced the 7 additional (32-bit) killed by signal results to this
commit 4ed28639519c fs, elf: drop MAP_FIXED usage from elf_map.
libhugetlbfs does unusual things and even provides custom linker scripts.
So, in hindsight this change in behavior does not seem too unexpected. I
JUST discovered this while running libhugetlbfs tests for an unrelated
issue/change and, will do some analysis to see exactly what is happening.
Also, will take it upon myself to run libhugetlbfs test suite on a
regular (at least weekly) basis.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists