[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmdROKOEfiP1rk8q@carbon>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:56:08 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
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 v2 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 08:56:17AM -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. A follow-on patch will
> leverage this to fix a bug in the test that incorrectly asserts that a
> sibling group that had performed an allocation, but only had protection
> from its parent, will not observe any memory.events.low events during
> reclaim.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists