[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210406100505.GA1880@pc638.lan>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:05:05 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next 2/5] lib/test_vmalloc.c: add a new 'nr_threads'
parameter
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 07:39:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 14:31:43 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > We may need to replaced that kcalloc() with kmvalloc() though...
> > >
> > Yep. If we limit to USHRT_MAX, the maximum amount of memory for
> > internal data would be ~12MB. Something like below:
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_vmalloc.c b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> > index d337985e4c5e..a5103e3461bf 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
> > MODULE_PARM_DESC(name, msg) \
> >
> > __param(int, nr_threads, 0,
> > - "Number of workers to perform tests(min: 1 max: 1024)");
> > + "Number of workers to perform tests(min: 1 max: 65536)");
> >
> > __param(bool, sequential_test_order, false,
> > "Use sequential stress tests order");
> > @@ -469,13 +469,13 @@ init_test_configurtion(void)
> > {
> > /*
> > * A maximum number of workers is defined as hard-coded
> > - * value and set to 1024. We add such gap just in case
> > + * value and set to 65536. We add such gap just in case
> > * and for potential heavy stressing.
> > */
> > - nr_threads = clamp(nr_threads, 1, 1024);
> > + nr_threads = clamp(nr_threads, 1, 65536);
> >
> > /* Allocate the space for test instances. */
> > - tdriver = kcalloc(nr_threads, sizeof(*tdriver), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + tdriver = kvcalloc(nr_threads, sizeof(*tdriver), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (tdriver == NULL)
> > return -1;
> >
> > @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ static void do_concurrent_test(void)
> > i, t->stop - t->start);
> > }
> >
> > - kfree(tdriver);
> > + kvfree(tdriver);
> > }
> >
> > static int vmalloc_test_init(void)
> >
> > Does it sound reasonable for you?
>
> I think so. It's a test thing so let's give testers more flexibility,
> remembering that they don't need as much protection from their own
> mistakes.
>
OK. I will send one more extra patch then.
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists