[PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Wei Yang]

Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.

Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
reasonable.

Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
 	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
 	size_t i;
 
-	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
+	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
 		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
 
 	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Baolin Wang]

On 2025/8/7 16:27, Wei Yang wrote:
> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
> 
> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
> reasonable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---

Yes. LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>

>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
>   	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
>   	size_t i;
>   
> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
>   		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
>   
>   	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Donet Tom]

On 8/7/25 1:57 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
>
> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
> reasonable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
>   	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
>   	size_t i;
>   
> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
>   		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
>   
>   	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();

LGTM

reviewed-by: Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[David Hildenbrand]

On 07.08.25 10:27, Wei Yang wrote:
> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
> 
> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
> reasonable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[wang lian]

On 2025/8/8 09:27, Wei Yang wrote:
> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
> 
> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
> reasonable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---

Yes. LGTM.
Reviewed-by: wang lian <lianux.mm@gmail.com>

Best regards,
wang lian

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Zi Yan]

On 7 Aug 2025, at 4:27, Wei Yang wrote:

> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
>
> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
> reasonable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
>  	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
>  	size_t i;
>
> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
>  		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
>
>  	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();

Which commit is this patch based on?

In mm-new[1], verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes() accepts
char *one_page and size_t len but no nr_hpages. This breaks
split_huge_page_test.c compilation.

Are you forgetting some cleanup patches before this one?

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=mm-new#n110


Hi Andrew,

Can you drop this one for now? Thanks.


--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Zi Yan]

On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:56, Zi Yan wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2025, at 4:27, Wei Yang wrote:
>
>> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
>> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
>>
>> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
>> reasonable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
>>  	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
>>  	size_t i;
>>
>> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
>> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
>>  		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
>>
>>  	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();
>
> Which commit is this patch based on?
>
> In mm-new[1], verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes() accepts
> char *one_page and size_t len but no nr_hpages. This breaks
> split_huge_page_test.c compilation.
>
> Are you forgetting some cleanup patches before this one?
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=mm-new#n110
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Can you drop this one for now? Thanks.

Wait. It seems that mm-new is different from Linus' tree[1]. I wonder
what is going on.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=v6.16#n109

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Zi Yan]

On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:59, Zi Yan wrote:

> On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:56, Zi Yan wrote:
>
>> On 7 Aug 2025, at 4:27, Wei Yang wrote:
>>
>>> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
>>> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
>>>
>>> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
>>> reasonable.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
>>>  	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
>>>  	size_t i;
>>>
>>> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
>>> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
>>>  		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
>>>
>>>  	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();
>>
>> Which commit is this patch based on?
>>
>> In mm-new[1], verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes() accepts
>> char *one_page and size_t len but no nr_hpages. This breaks
>> split_huge_page_test.c compilation.
>>
>> Are you forgetting some cleanup patches before this one?
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=mm-new#n110
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Can you drop this one for now? Thanks.
>
> Wait. It seems that mm-new is different from Linus' tree[1]. I wonder
> what is going on.
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=v6.16#n109

Wei, it seems that you lost the race to Muhammad Usama Anjum's cleanup patch[1].
You might need to add nr_hpages back.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250731160132.1795351-6-usama.anjum@collabora.com/T/#u

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 12:01:47 -0400 Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> wrote:

> > Wait. It seems that mm-new is different from Linus' tree[1]. I wonder
> > what is going on.
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=v6.16#n109
> 
> Wei, it seems that you lost the race to Muhammad Usama Anjum's cleanup patch[1].
> You might need to add nr_hpages back.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250731160132.1795351-6-usama.anjum@collabora.com/T/#u
> 

Ah, thanks, I'll drop this version of "selftests/mm: do
check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in".

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Wei Yang]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 12:01:47PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:59, Zi Yan wrote:
>
>> On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:56, Zi Yan wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Aug 2025, at 4:27, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
>>>> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
>>>>
>>>> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
>>>> reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>>> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
>>>> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
>>>>  	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
>>>>  	size_t i;
>>>>
>>>> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
>>>> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
>>>>  		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
>>>>
>>>>  	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();
>>>
>>> Which commit is this patch based on?
>>>
>>> In mm-new[1], verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes() accepts
>>> char *one_page and size_t len but no nr_hpages. This breaks
>>> split_huge_page_test.c compilation.
>>>
>>> Are you forgetting some cleanup patches before this one?
>>>
>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=mm-new#n110
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Can you drop this one for now? Thanks.
>>
>> Wait. It seems that mm-new is different from Linus' tree[1]. I wonder
>> what is going on.
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=v6.16#n109
>
>Wei, it seems that you lost the race to Muhammad Usama Anjum's cleanup patch[1].
>You might need to add nr_hpages back.
>
>[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250731160132.1795351-6-usama.anjum@collabora.com/T/#u
>

Thanks.

My patch is based on mm-unstable. So currently we base commit on mm-new?

>--
>Best Regards,
>Yan, Zi

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

Yeah just hit this,

Adnrew - can we please drop this patch from mm-new for now? It's breaking the mm
self tests build.

Maybe then Wei you can do a v2 rebased on current state of mm self tests?

Thanks!

On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 12:01:47PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:59, Zi Yan wrote:
>
> > On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:56, Zi Yan wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 Aug 2025, at 4:27, Wei Yang wrote:
> >>
> >>> Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for
> >>> check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
> >>>
> >>> Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more
> >>> reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> >>> index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c
> >>> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp
> >>>  	unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after;
> >>>  	size_t i;
> >>>
> >>> -	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
> >>> +	if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize))
> >>>  		ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
> >>>
> >>>  	rss_anon_before = rss_anon();
> >>
> >> Which commit is this patch based on?
> >>
> >> In mm-new[1], verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes() accepts
> >> char *one_page and size_t len but no nr_hpages. This breaks
> >> split_huge_page_test.c compilation.
> >>
> >> Are you forgetting some cleanup patches before this one?
> >>
> >> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=mm-new#n110
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Can you drop this one for now? Thanks.
> >
> > Wait. It seems that mm-new is different from Linus' tree[1]. I wonder
> > what is going on.
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c?h=v6.16#n109
>
> Wei, it seems that you lost the race to Muhammad Usama Anjum's cleanup patch[1].
> You might need to add nr_hpages back.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250731160132.1795351-6-usama.anjum@collabora.com/T/#u
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi

Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in

[Wei Yang]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>Yeah just hit this,
>
>Adnrew - can we please drop this patch from mm-new for now? It's breaking the mm
>self tests build.
>
>Maybe then Wei you can do a v2 rebased on current state of mm self tests?
>

Yup, v2 is on its way.

>Thanks!
>

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me