[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJHvVch3fv2Z509fSha5R3VCvp_unPNgy7QUA+Xbet2J6hJhOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:07:51 -0700
From: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <lsoaresp@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/31] selftests/mm: Test UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE only when !hugetlb
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:42 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Make the check as simple as "test_type == TEST_HUGETLB" because that's the
> only mem that doesn't support ZEROPAGE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
The end state we get to in patch 26 is what I was hoping for - we
check the ioctls reported by UFFDIO_REGISTER to decide if we rest this
or not. So then this intermediate state used to get rid of
get_expected_ioctls() is fine.
Reviewed-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/userfaultfd.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/userfaultfd.c
> index 795fbc4d84f8..d724f1c78847 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry)
> {
> struct uffdio_zeropage uffdio_zeropage;
> int ret;
> - bool has_zeropage = get_expected_ioctls(0) & (1 << _UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE);
> + bool has_zeropage = !(test_type == TEST_HUGETLB);
> __s64 res;
>
> if (offset >= nr_pages * page_size)
> --
> 2.39.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists