linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] selftests/mm: Don't fail uffd-stress if too many CPUs

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: <CA+i-1C2_Ooi59HEmVma-=XF99eqHa-uZwd7DL21VtAvPg3S1EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:01:34 +0100
From: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] selftests/mm: Don't fail uffd-stress if too many CPUs

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:48, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20/02/25 8:33 pm, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > > This calculation divides a fixed parameter by an environment-dependent
> > > parameter i.e. the number of CPUs.
> > >
> > > The simple way to avoid machine-specific failures here is to just put a
> > > cap on the max value of the latter.
> >
> > I haven't read the test, but if nr_cpus is being computed, then this
> > value must be important to the test somehow? Would it potentially be
> > wrong to let the test run for nr_cpus != actual number of cpus?
>
> Based on my _extremely hasty_ reading, the variable is misnamed and
> it's actually a thread count not a CPU count. I can double check
> that's the case and rename it.

Oh yeah actually, it's only misnamed because I made it misnamed. So
this patch needs to rename it for sure, thanks for pointing it out.

(But yeah I upgraded my extremely hasty reading to an only hasty
reading and I still don't think this test cares about the actual CPU
topology).