From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: Possible bug - LTP failure for memcg Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 14:09:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20150514120926.GF6799@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <55536DC9.90200@kyup.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55536DC9.90200-6AxghH7DbtA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org On Wed 13-05-15 18:29:13, Nikolay Borisov wrote: [...] > memcg_function_test 22 TFAIL : ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4095, > limit_in_bytes=0 > memcg_function_test 23 TFAIL : ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4097, > limit_in_bytes=4096 > memcg_function_test 24 TFAIL : ltpapicmd.c:190: input=1, > limit_in_bytes=0 Before we go and fix these test cases. Do they make any sense at all? Why should anybody even care that the limit is in page units? I do not see anything like that mentioned in the documentation. Sure having the limit in page size units makes a lot of sense from the implementation POV but should userspace care? Would something break if we change internals and allow also !page_aligned values? I have hard time to imagine that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs