linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: Introduce a test program to assess swap entry allocation for thp

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: <d5f14248-3cbc-4c1e-8b0f-f241b07f5fb5@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:52:03 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: chrisl@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
 kasong@...cent.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: Introduce a test program to assess swap
 entry allocation for thp_swapout

On 21.06.24 09:25, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 20/06/2024 12:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.06.24 11:04, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2024 01:26, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>>>>
>>>> Both Ryan and Chris have been utilizing the small test program to aid
>>>> in debugging and identifying issues with swap entry allocation. While
>>>> a real or intricate workload might be more suitable for assessing the
>>>> correctness and effectiveness of the swap allocation policy, a small
>>>> test program presents a simpler means of understanding the problem and
>>>> initially verifying the improvements being made.
>>>>
>>>> Let's endeavor to integrate it into the self-test suite. Although it
>>>> presently only accommodates 64KB and 4KB, I'm optimistic that we can
>>>> expand its capabilities to support multiple sizes and simulate more
>>>> complex systems in the future as required.
>>>
>>> I'll try to summarize the thread with Huang Ying by suggesting this test program
>>> is "neccessary but not sufficient" to exhaustively test the mTHP swap-out path.
>>> I've certainly found it useful and think it would be a valuable addition to the
>>> tree.
>>>
>>> That said, I'm not convinced it is a selftest; IMO a selftest should provide a
>>> clear pass/fail result against some criteria and must be able to be run
>>> automatically by (e.g.) a CI system.
>>
>> Likely we should then consider moving other such performance-related thingies
>> out of the selftests?
> 
> Yes, that would get my vote. But of the 4 tests you mentioned that use
> clock_gettime(), it looks like transhuge-stress is the only one that doesn't
> have a pass/fail result, so is probably the only candidate for moving.
> 
> The others either use the times as a timeout and determines failure if the
> action didn't occur within the timeout (e.g. ksm_tests.c) or use it to add some
> supplemental performance information to an otherwise functionality-oriented test.

Likely for ksm it would make sense to move the really functional parts 
to ksm_function_tests.c.

Fur gup_test it might be similar.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb