[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240826150138.xi3jmtylcej2m6ff@quentin>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:01:38 +0000
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
gost.dev@...sung.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do not try to split below filesystem block
size
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:59:16AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2024, at 10:53, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>
> > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
> >
> > There is no point trying to split pagecache thp below the blocksize of
> > the filesystem as that is the minimum order that pagecache needs to
> > maintain to support blocksizes greater than pagesize [1].
>
> But the purpose of the tests is to make sure all cases are properly handled,
> right? If we do not test splitting pagecache large folio below the
> block size, we will never know if a kernel change breaks the handling.
>
> Just my two cents.
That is a fair point. Let's ignore this patch then :)
>
> >
> > Set the lower limit for the splitting order to be the fs blocksize
> > order.
> >
> > As the number of tests will now depend on the minimum splitting order,
> > move the file preparation before calling ksft_set_plan().
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20240822135018.1931258-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
> > ---
> > .../selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi
--
Pankaj Raghav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists