From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38E3D35E529 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 09:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774259079; cv=none; b=EsaC9jIFHClttrSo273miLcYTVHNktf6DMGbXVlu7VUKAb8GIMsbihkEsbheVjdsqJIr2jTUNUreBs1S9R4Q6uL0x478/pLSyeCFT6387V2EuIGJbUGoyqQkK9gBmvrl+T4jxGJ95KqRFKjToBV7v60PYXabMvtvEaB5gIPYHG0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774259079; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XYhbbjpDV0ET9lpzrkJgS6mYpcOgfUEU7VTc6kLP4UA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ud4Xmhq1UWqoyQDFkRDaQVBxGZ2v/oFNATt32nOb6j+lNIsYVTpmwQZU1/FB0OpXUGxYdCTluOT2sHhicL4FKN+44Vh94MDK5yFcMri+82HutNp/1oQw+vEdQRtMK2r8pZYZfkI4LajjKM10xsSb/NsKiCO5GmYEqTus1YIHGj4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=DuoL+M4r; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=jnN4XEa/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="DuoL+M4r"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="jnN4XEa/" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1774259076; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2LcMB5gIX03eono8rt37+6BTZoTufylHEu17I/eh9tE=; b=DuoL+M4rpNnsY485WkmpPP/v4w4M4yYopCGHGIOGHmJ8aoeI0MmM7Dcz//PoltaF1dfELT 0HDOHVfuIEaY2n3xzFCzsBlodCXr910MXE4lfK3f9nXwG4Mzo3oi+iPJexdXW8t9b0MVoc Povb/PZeoFxuF1N6SoOAYe0zezgJIis= Received: from mail-pf1-f197.google.com (mail-pf1-f197.google.com [209.85.210.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-553-leot1jsqNOS5k1HT9aKU7w-1; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 05:44:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: leot1jsqNOS5k1HT9aKU7w-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: leot1jsqNOS5k1HT9aKU7w_1774259074 Received: by mail-pf1-f197.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-829a535ad50so2429045b3a.2 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:44:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=google; t=1774259073; x=1774863873; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2LcMB5gIX03eono8rt37+6BTZoTufylHEu17I/eh9tE=; b=jnN4XEa/YmZZveP6wlU5CqkVv47uZboQ6OYTGQo2VaLeb8VXabDo6ErzIUKpT3TVb1 5y4tAf2hS7eYvgvr7M2TEB8r7KsgEfC2SuVWq3NT9dPnBzFsSqSS6DPs5apfCnaIzdKA VU0Q/n/OO/xnHIQi5VzrcEIVblZrGjzPgWjBK452cVjPilmN4axnih4a/rBbh9H2RGto ZvA7hcyJBr+Yu1UmWg/knavHtZ9D0sHzHTQp1IR2F3wVx22FCYmf52BBWrNXQkg73Kgq vZzsKMxkGD4TCFKUriqFopLka2QiROj61ZTiWNTTnPZbHFq7u9MSZ2j/Q/OXD/O9mqf8 UbSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1774259073; x=1774863873; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2LcMB5gIX03eono8rt37+6BTZoTufylHEu17I/eh9tE=; b=YtLauYgUWkCAhXCr+4bUK5dt6IMJZXDx01ghmhs/DvYJqKZt4GQypo12vV3az2DdW6 b0R4t7PtiaZsWcQDNeGPlxau9oJbJjaW/ZnMYHxEbCB7QXQeu5R4UxFe5VGq1PRzpHR6 Fkp+wvKzV60j6mtx64Js6JsfX2A3xYbNkVPA+EQSNdrj5npuJSmwZzvHiC3rbKyypOza vzrmZUY4UDLCfqGlBTBYcfoEYMs7k9EkxmHqmWmr2voddR5Kg7ZgqWSXK/IJT99aqoPe 3yxHEY5dxVP+qb7ea14rDLneGIgaBpfsgMCzkHU++pttClr7UWMhR+mO0HKmhUxfatGL zCHA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVi3/eLGQZ+Q5kp6KGxrToCdEQHl2X5phHO+d6RkJ3lZQq3NpP7wbjA0O4XGGgwC71mK1XxSC1q@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy9EhnCSbrPv7z1JgqTN9sHAT6QS4CSZxRluH+HvNCny1UpAnHy /1GmuB7dUYYiTMJB80NCpOBTkKTSSHfgqhBgM5FhMhjBOpcCKuaUPm7KliLXvc629Lvu0cqEyc1 xrODvrBdNHVrBehqWEIDQrFz4zBIYX6zQG5hXuBX2+UGh4zwkpAmi0Vso3Hk= X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzxDZQMzktz8B+WQhL3w1aXwgS6CwwSZzB/gM7KXp7haE1JReAbeMYKSmy0nbDH 9WoJnDYBSN0gJh4UlWst6Qd6e0W9it7VlP5wabr+4wzSpQqwI6P2ffnmQ38l2+GAn7AZz82erLZ iersrAKE7+VHamOxD2mO6bCL9gWL+BBuANeIVLIzv3FfyqZMQdwd+AiW+EUZ/svHuJVnjOkkXad 5o/boYplq2HtfTyD96DkQFILX2NRAtMV/lcnPYIxRSVxcGb4myvXWAAyjRda9Srwgd9MvrIFq2O resmfbbWZnBc70uxsJzFeLoFfjlgEHw76YT3FT8Q7LvRfws/RlWIONfbCKrF0re6Zvd78odlZZS fQ3Ulr0TpewPgTpie4g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:12e2:b0:82a:7dfd:9757 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-82a8c2525d6mr10198878b3a.4.1774259073591; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:44:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:12e2:b0:82a:7dfd:9757 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-82a8c2525d6mr10198855b3a.4.1774259073192; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([209.132.188.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-82b0409c681sm10471814b3a.37.2026.03.23.02.44.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:44:29 +0800 From: Li Wang To: Waiman Long Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= , Shuah Khan , Mike Rapoport , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Sean Christopherson , James Houghton , Sebastian Chlad , Guopeng Zhang , Li Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] selftests: memcg: Treat failure for zeroing sock in test_memcg_sock as XFAIL Message-ID: References: <20260320204241.1613861-1-longman@redhat.com> <20260320204241.1613861-8-longman@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260320204241.1613861-8-longman@redhat.com> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 04:42:41PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > Although there is supposed to be a periodic and asynchronous flush of > stats every 2 seconds, the actual time lag between succesive runs can > actually vary quite a bit. In fact, I have seen time lag of up to 10s > of seconds in some cases. > > At the end of test_memcg_sock, it waits up to 3 seconds for the > "sock" attribute of memory.stat to go back down to 0. Obviously it > may occasionally fail especially when the kernel has large page size > (e.g. 64k). Treat this failure as an expected failure (XFAIL) to > distinguish it from the other failure cases. > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long > --- > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > index 5336be5ed2f5..af3e8fe4e50e 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > @@ -1486,12 +1486,21 @@ static int test_memcg_sock(const char *root) > * Poll memory.stat for up to 3 seconds (~FLUSH_TIME plus some > * scheduling slack) and require that the "sock " counter > * eventually drops to zero. > + * > + * The actual run-to-run elapse time between consecutive run > + * of asynchronous memcg rstat flush may varies quite a bit. > + * So the 3 seconds wait time may not be enough for the "sock" > + * counter to go down to 0. Treat it as a XFAIL instead of > + * a FAIL. > */ > sock_post = cg_read_key_long_poll(memcg, "memory.stat", "sock ", 0, > MEMCG_SOCKSTAT_WAIT_RETRIES, > DEFAULT_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); > - if (sock_post) > + if (sock_post) { > + if (sock_post > 0) > + ret = KSFT_XFAIL; XFAIL means "expected failure" and is intended for known kernel bugs or unsupported features. A timing issue where the test simply doesn't wait long enough probably not an expected failure, it's a test that needs a longer timeout. I'm wondering can we just enlarge the MEMCG_SOCKSTAT_WAIT_RETRIES value? e.g. from 30 to 150 -- Regards, Li Wang