linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 8/9] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:03:40 -0800
From:   Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To:     Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 8/9] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation tests

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:42 AM Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 05/02/20 4:03 am, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:36 PM Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So the problem in this log seems to be that this log line is missing:
> >>     echo Waiting for hugetlb memory to reach size $size.
> >>
> >> The way the test works is that it starts a process that writes the
> >> hugetlb memory, then it *should* wait until the memory is written,
> >> then it should record the cgroup accounting and kill the process. It
> >> seems from your log that the wait doesn't happen, so the test
> >> continues before the background process has had time to write the
> >> memory properly. Essentially wait_for_hugetlb_memory_to_get_written()
> >> never gets called in your log.
> >>
> >> Can you try this additional attached diff on top of your changes? I
> >> attached the diff and pasted the same here, hopefully one works for
> >> you:
> >> ...
> >
> > I got my hands on a machine with 16MB default hugepage size and
> > charge_reserved_hugetlb.sh passes now after my changes. Please let me
> > know if you still run into issues.
> >
>
> With your updates, the tests are passing. Ran the tests on a ppc64 system
> that uses radix MMU (2MB hugepages) and everything passed there as well.
>

Thanks, please consider reviewing the next iteration of the patch then.

> - Sandipan
>