From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753012AbcIAHPB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:15:01 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:35931 "EHLO
        mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750798AbcIAHO5 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:14:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:14:52 +0800
From: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@gmail.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/vm: add test for mlock() when areas are
 intersected.
Message-ID: <20160901071354.GA3306@simonLocalRHEL7.x64>
References: <1472554781-9835-1-git-send-email-wei.guo.simon@gmail.com>
 <1472554781-9835-5-git-send-email-wei.guo.simon@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608311612190.89744@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608311612190.89744@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi David,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 04:14:14PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, wei.guo.simon@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@gmail.com>
> > 
> > This patch adds mlock() test for multiple invocation on
> > the same address area, and verify it doesn't mess the
> > rlimit mlock limitation.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for expanding mlock testing.  I'm wondering if you are interested 
> in more elaborate testing that doesn't only check what you are fixing, 
> such as mlock(p + x, 40k) where x is < 20k?
> 
> Would you also be willing to make sure that the rlimit is actually 
> enforced when it's expected to?
I'd like to do so. 
Let me think more for the comprehensive testing. If you have any other
test cases in mind, please let me know.

Thanks,
- Simon