linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/13] mm: page_frag: add a test module for page

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]

Message-ID: <20240530081653.769e4377@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 08:16:53 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexander Duyck
 <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/13] mm: page_frag: add a test module for
 page_frag

On Thu, 30 May 2024 17:17:17 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > Is this test actually meaningfully testing page_frag or rather
> > the objpool construct and the scheduler? :S  
> 
> For the objpool part, I guess it is ok to say that it is a
> meaningfully testing for both page_frag and objpool if there is
> changing to either of them.

Why guess when you can measure it. 
Slow one down and see if it impacts the benchmark.

> For the scheduler part, this test provides the below module param
> to avoid the the noise from scheduler.
> 
> +static int test_push_cpu;
> +module_param(test_push_cpu, int, 0600);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(test_push_cpu, "test cpu for pushing fragment");
> +
> +static int test_pop_cpu;
> +module_param(test_pop_cpu, int, 0600);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(test_pop_cpu, "test cpu for popping fragment");
> 
> Or is there any better idea for testing page_frag?