linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests

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:   Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:30:37 -0700
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 04:04:15PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>

Thanks for the reviews on this patchset, Roman. FYI I think Andrew already
merged these patches to the -mm tree. I'll send out a follow-on patch that
fixes everything you pointed out, both here and on the other patches in the
set.

> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 08:57:25AM -0700, David Vernet wrote:
> > In test_memcg_min() and test_memcg_low(), there is an array of four sibling
> > cgroups. All but one of these sibling groups does a 50MB allocation, and
> > the group that does no allocation is the third of four in the array.  This
> > is not a problem per se, but makes it a bit tricky to do some assertions in
> > test_memcg_low(), as we want to make assertions on the siblings based on
> > whether or not they performed allocations. Having a static index before
> > which all groups have performed an allocation makes this cleaner.
> > 
> > This patch therefore reorders the sibling groups so that the group that
> > performs no allocations is the last in the array.
> 
> It makes the comment explaining the test just above the test_memcg_min()
> function obsolete. Please, fix it too.

Thanks for catching that. I'll fix the comment both in test_memcg_min() and
test_memcg_low() when I send out that follow-on patch.