[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6bd3d2df-8a21-40df-08c3-e9eaaa5000fe@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:43:45 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] memblock tests: add tests for
memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw
On 19.10.22 20:34, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> These patches add tests for memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(). There are two
> sets of tests: range tests and NUMA tests. The range tests use a normal
> (i.e., UMA) simulated physical memory and set the nid to NUMA_NO_NODE. The
> NUMA tests use a simulated physical memory that is set up with multiple
> NUMA nodes. Additionally, most of the NUMA tests set nid != NUMA_NO_NODE.
>
> For the range tests, the TEST_F_EXACT flag is used to run the same set of
> range tests used for memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(). The NUMA tests have the
> same setup as the corresponding test for memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(), but
> several of the memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() tests fail to allocate
> memory in setups where the memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw() test would
> allocate memory. Also, some memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw() tests drop the
> lower limit of the requested range in order to allocate within the
> requested node, but the same setup in a memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw() test
> allocates within the requested range.
Thanks a lot Rebecca for moving forward with these changes even after
your Outreachy internship ended!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists