[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250809183207.yx3eetkmr7bd3356@master>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 18:32:07 +0000
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@...ux.ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, shuah@...nel.org, pfalcato@...e.de,
david@...hat.com, ziy@...dia.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
npache@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com, dev.jain@....com,
baohua@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ritesh.list@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] selftest/mm: Fix ksm_funtional_test failures
On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 07:55:37PM +0530, Donet Tom wrote:
[...]
>> Thanks for the detailed analysis.
>>
>> So the key is child has no ksm_rmap_item which will not clear ksm_merging_page
>> on ksm_unmerge().
>>
>> > So, only processes that performed KSM merging will have their counters
>> > updated during ksm_unmerge(). The child process, having not initiated any
>> > merging, retains the inherited counter value without any update.
>> >
>> > So from a testing point of view, I think it is better to reset the
>> > counters as part of the cleanup code to ensure that the next tests do
>> > not get incorrect values.
>> >
>> Hmm... I agree from the test point of view based on current situation.
>>
>> While maybe this is also a check point for later version.
>
>Are you okay to proceed with the current patch in this series?
>
Sure.
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists