Re: [PATCH v2] test: improve resiliency of malloc autotest

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:26:01 +0000
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 05:20:41PM +0300, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote:
> > 2025-01-17 13:52 (UTC+0000), Bruce Richardson:  
> > > The test case "test_multi_alloc_statistics" was brittle in that it did
> > > some allocations and frees and then checked statistics without
> > > considering the initial state of the malloc heaps. This meant that,
> > > depending on what allocations/frees were done beforehand, the test can
> > > sometimes fail.
> > > 
> > > We can improve resiliency by running the test using a new malloc heap,
> > > which means it is unaffected by any previous allocations.
> > > 
> > > Bugzilla ID: 1579
> > > Fixes: a40a1f8231b4 ("app: various tests update")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > * removed unnecessary extra include
> > > * only added new code for non-windows, since using mmap for allocation.  
> > 
> > Why is it necessary to use `mmap()` and not portable `malloc()`?
> > Even the comment in the patch says "malloc" :)  
> 
> I did originally use malloc, but malloc didn't give us aligned memory so
> the call to add the memory to the heap was subsequently failing.

Use posix_memalign() or aligned_alloc() for that?