[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zg2dpzSlEantr0Y8@x1n>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:19:19 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: run_vmtests.sh: Fix hugetlb mem size
calculation
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 12:04:00PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh
> > index c2c542fe7b17..b1b78e45d613 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh
> > @@ -152,9 +152,13 @@ done < /proc/meminfo
> > # both of these requirements into account and attempt to increase
> > # number of huge pages available.
> > nr_cpus=$(nproc)
> > -hpgsize_MB=$((hpgsize_KB / 1024))
> > -half_ufd_size_MB=$((((nr_cpus * hpgsize_MB + 127) / 128) * 128))
>
> Removing this has broken the uffd-stress "hugetlb" and "hugetlb-private" tests
> (further down the file), which rely on $half_ufd_size_MB. Now that this is not
> defined, they are called with too few params:
Those FAILs can be burried in some other libc mismatch issues for me so I
overlooked.. My apologies.
I'll send a fixup soon, thank you Ryan!
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists