All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] perf_event_open: improve the memory leak detection
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:20:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZpkytUBtKfJ1Dfkk@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d7014164-0d1f-4ab5-be80-042d4da5cca2@suse.cz>

Hi!
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * Every 1200000 iterations, calculate the difference in memory
> >> +		 * availability. If the difference is greater than 10 * 1024 (10MB),
> >> +		 * increment the sample counter and log the event.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		if ((i % 1200000) == 0) {
> >> +			mem_avail = SAFE_READ_MEMINFO("MemAvailable:");
> >> +			diff = mem_avail_prev - mem_avail;
> >> +			diff_total += diff;
> >> +
> >> +			if (diff > 20 * 1024) {
> > 
> > Shouldn't this be 10 * 1024 or possibly slightly less than 10 * 1024?
> 
> This should be fine. The test leaks around 38MB between sample checks 
> and over 350MB in a whole test run.

Then we should fix the comment.

> > 
> >> +				sample++;
> >> +				tst_res(TINFO, "MemAvailable decreased by %ld kB at iteration %d", diff, i);
> >> +			}
> >> +
> >> +			mem_avail_prev = mem_avail;
> >> +		}
> >> +	}
> >>   
> >> -	if (diff > 50 * 1024)
> >> -		tst_res(TFAIL, "Likely kernel memory leak detected");
> >> +	if ((sample > 5) || (diff_total > 100 * 1024))
> > 
> > Maybe this can rather be if ((sample > 5) && (diff_total > 100 * 1024))
> > 
> > That means that the available memory has been eaten by something and
> > that it happened more or less in a linear fashion when the program was
> > running.
> 
> Imagine that some other process releases 300MB of memory while the test 
> is running. If you change the || to &&, you'll get a false negative in 
> that case. The sampling approach will protect against such interference.
> 
> That being said, if the available memory on your test system fluctuates 
> by 100+MB during a test run that takes <10 seconds, I'd recommend 
> investigating what's causing such fluctuation. On the test machine I 
> used to verify this patch, I can see <10MB of difference before and 
> after running the test on a fixed kernel.

So shall we remove the diff_total completely?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-18 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-05  3:15 [LTP] [PATCH] perf_event_open: improve the memory leak detection Li Wang
2024-07-05  3:30 ` Li Wang
2024-07-17  6:50 ` Li Wang
2024-07-17  8:31 ` Cyril Hrubis
2024-07-18 15:17   ` Martin Doucha
2024-07-18 15:20     ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2024-07-18 15:25       ` Martin Doucha
2024-07-19  2:02         ` Li Wang
2024-07-18 15:07 ` Martin Doucha

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZpkytUBtKfJ1Dfkk@yuki \
    --to=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=mdoucha@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.