* [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices @ 2016-03-16 3:01 Julio Cruz 2016-03-17 9:20 ` Jan Stancek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Julio Cruz @ 2016-03-16 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp This patch check the available memory before to perform the different test cases. If the memory is not enough (according with each test case), the test finish as TCONF. This could be usefull when you are testing on embedded devices with RAM memory limitation (i.e. 512MB) This patch no changed the test case procedure and is still valid for non-embedded devices. It just verify the available memory. Signed-off-by: Julio Cruz <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c index 54cdc83..8967c8e 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c @@ -45,7 +45,10 @@ char *TCID = "getrusage03"; int TST_TOTAL = 1; -#define DELTA_MAX 10240 +#define DELTA_MAX 10240 +#define DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB 100 + +unsigned long avail_memory_mb; static struct rusage ru; static long maxrss_init; @@ -65,6 +68,14 @@ static void consume(int mega); static void setup(void); static void cleanup(void); +unsigned long get_available_memory_mb(void) +{ + unsigned long long ps, pn; + ps = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); + pn = sysconf(_SC_AVPHYS_PAGES); + return ps * pn / (1024*1024); +} + int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int lc; @@ -73,19 +84,26 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) setup(); - for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) { - tst_count = 0; - - tst_resm(TINFO, "allocate 100MB"); - consume(100); - - inherit_fork(); - inherit_fork2(); - fork_malloc(); - grandchild_maxrss(); - zombie(); - sig_ign(); - exec_without_fork(); + avail_memory_mb = get_available_memory_mb(); + + tst_resm(TINFO, "Available memory: %ldMB\n", avail_memory_mb); + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); + } else { + for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) { + tst_count = 0; + + tst_resm(TINFO, "allocate %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); + consume(DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); + + inherit_fork(); + inherit_fork2(); + fork_malloc(); + grandchild_maxrss(); + zombie(); + sig_ign(); + exec_without_fork(); + } } cleanup(); tst_exit(); @@ -95,11 +113,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) * expect: initial.self ~= child.self */ static void inherit_fork(void) { - tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #01: fork inherit"); - SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_SELF, &ru); tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.self = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); + tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #01: fork inherit"); + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); + return; + } + switch (pid = fork()) { case -1: tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "fork #1"); @@ -119,17 +141,21 @@ static void inherit_fork(void) } /* Testcase #02: fork inherit (cont.) - * expect: initial.children ~= 100MB, child.children = 0 */ + * expect: initial.children ~= DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB, child.children = 0 */ static void inherit_fork2(void) { tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #02: fork inherit(cont.)"); + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); + return; + } SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); if (is_in_delta(ru.ru_maxrss - 102400)) - tst_resm(TPASS, "initial.children ~= 100MB"); + tst_resm(TPASS, "initial.children ~= %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); else - tst_resm(TFAIL, "initial.children !~= 100MB"); + tst_resm(TFAIL, "initial.children !~= %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); switch (pid = fork()) { case -1: @@ -153,6 +179,10 @@ static void inherit_fork2(void) static void fork_malloc(void) { tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #03: fork + malloc"); + if (avail_memory_mb < (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2+50)) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); + return; + } SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_SELF, &ru); tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.self = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); @@ -182,6 +212,10 @@ static void fork_malloc(void) static void grandchild_maxrss(void) { tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #04: grandchild maxrss"); + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+300)) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); + return; + } SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); @@ -216,6 +250,10 @@ static void grandchild_maxrss(void) static void zombie(void) { tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #05: zombie"); + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+400)) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); + return; + } SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); @@ -259,6 +297,10 @@ static void zombie(void) static void sig_ign(void) { tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #06: SIG_IGN"); + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+500)) { + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run test case"); + return; + } SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices 2016-03-16 3:01 [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices Julio Cruz @ 2016-03-17 9:20 ` Jan Stancek 2016-03-20 13:58 ` Julio Cruz 2016-03-23 4:28 ` Julio Cruz Barroso 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jan Stancek @ 2016-03-17 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julio Cruz" <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> > To: "julio cruz" <julio.cruz@smartmatic.com>, ltp@lists.linux.it, chrubis@suse.cz, jstancek@redhat.com > Cc: "Julio Cruz" <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 March, 2016 4:01:15 AM > Subject: [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices > > This patch check the available memory before to perform the > different test cases. If the memory is not enough (according with > each test case), the test finish as TCONF. > This could be usefull when you are testing on embedded devices > with RAM memory limitation (i.e. 512MB) > This patch no changed the test case procedure and is still valid > for non-embedded devices. It just verify the available memory. > > Signed-off-by: Julio Cruz <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> > --- > testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c | 80 > +++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) Hi, > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > index 54cdc83..8967c8e 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > @@ -45,7 +45,10 @@ > char *TCID = "getrusage03"; > int TST_TOTAL = 1; > > -#define DELTA_MAX 10240 > +#define DELTA_MAX 10240 > +#define DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB 100 > + > +unsigned long avail_memory_mb; > > static struct rusage ru; > static long maxrss_init; > @@ -65,6 +68,14 @@ static void consume(int mega); > static void setup(void); > static void cleanup(void); > > +unsigned long get_available_memory_mb(void) > +{ > + unsigned long long ps, pn; > + ps = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); > + pn = sysconf(_SC_AVPHYS_PAGES); > + return ps * pn / (1024*1024); What I was suggesting was: return (ps / 1024) * pn / 1024; All of the page sizes are at least 4k (grep "define PAGE_SHIFT" -r linux/arch/). This way "unsigned long" should do just fine for all variables. > +} > + > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > int lc; > @@ -73,19 +84,26 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > setup(); > > - for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) { > - tst_count = 0; > - > - tst_resm(TINFO, "allocate 100MB"); > - consume(100); > - > - inherit_fork(); > - inherit_fork2(); > - fork_malloc(); > - grandchild_maxrss(); > - zombie(); > - sig_ign(); > - exec_without_fork(); > + avail_memory_mb = get_available_memory_mb(); > + > + tst_resm(TINFO, "Available memory: %ldMB\n", avail_memory_mb); > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); We have tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "...");, which will print message, run cleanup and exit testcase. > + } else { > + for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) { > + tst_count = 0; > + > + tst_resm(TINFO, "allocate %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > + consume(DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); This consume() is within loop, and it doesn't look like same loop frees any memory. I suggest you move it before loop. You can try running the testcase with "-i 20". > + > + inherit_fork(); > + inherit_fork2(); > + fork_malloc(); > + grandchild_maxrss(); > + zombie(); > + sig_ign(); > + exec_without_fork(); > + } > } > cleanup(); > tst_exit(); > @@ -95,11 +113,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > * expect: initial.self ~= child.self */ > static void inherit_fork(void) > { > - tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #01: fork inherit"); > - > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_SELF, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.self = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > > + tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #01: fork inherit"); > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { Is this needed? Child is not allocating anything, and fork should use copy-on-write. > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > + > switch (pid = fork()) { > case -1: > tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "fork #1"); > @@ -119,17 +141,21 @@ static void inherit_fork(void) > } > > /* Testcase #02: fork inherit (cont.) > - * expect: initial.children ~= 100MB, child.children = 0 */ > + * expect: initial.children ~= DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB, child.children = 0 */ > static void inherit_fork2(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #02: fork inherit(cont.)"); > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { Same as above. > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > if (is_in_delta(ru.ru_maxrss - 102400)) > - tst_resm(TPASS, "initial.children ~= 100MB"); > + tst_resm(TPASS, "initial.children ~= %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > else > - tst_resm(TFAIL, "initial.children !~= 100MB"); > + tst_resm(TFAIL, "initial.children !~= %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > > switch (pid = fork()) { > case -1: > @@ -153,6 +179,10 @@ static void inherit_fork2(void) > static void fork_malloc(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #03: fork + malloc"); > + if (avail_memory_mb < (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2+50)) { Same as above, isn't "50" going to be enough? Regards, Jan > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_SELF, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.self = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > @@ -182,6 +212,10 @@ static void fork_malloc(void) > static void grandchild_maxrss(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #04: grandchild maxrss"); > + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+300)) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > @@ -216,6 +250,10 @@ static void grandchild_maxrss(void) > static void zombie(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #05: zombie"); > + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+400)) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > @@ -259,6 +297,10 @@ static void zombie(void) > static void sig_ign(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #06: SIG_IGN"); > + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+500)) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run test case"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > -- > 1.9.1 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices 2016-03-17 9:20 ` Jan Stancek @ 2016-03-20 13:58 ` Julio Cruz 2016-03-23 4:28 ` Julio Cruz Barroso 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Julio Cruz @ 2016-03-20 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi Jan, On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote: ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julio Cruz" <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> > To: "julio cruz" <julio.cruz@smartmatic.com>, ltp@lists.linux.it, chrubis@suse.cz, jstancek@redhat.com > Cc: "Julio Cruz" <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 March, 2016 4:01:15 AM > Subject: [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices > > This patch check the available memory before to perform the > different test cases. If the memory is not enough (according with > each test case), the test finish as TCONF. > This could be usefull when you are testing on embedded devices > with RAM memory limitation (i.e. 512MB) > This patch no changed the test case procedure and is still valid > for non-embedded devices. It just verify the available memory. > > Signed-off-by: Julio Cruz <jcsistemas2001@gmail.com> > --- > testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c | 80 > +++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) Hi, > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > index 54cdc83..8967c8e 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrusage/getrusage03.c > @@ -45,7 +45,10 @@ > char *TCID = "getrusage03"; > int TST_TOTAL = 1; > > -#define DELTA_MAX 10240 > +#define DELTA_MAX 10240 > +#define DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB 100 > + > +unsigned long avail_memory_mb; > > static struct rusage ru; > static long maxrss_init; > @@ -65,6 +68,14 @@ static void consume(int mega); > static void setup(void); > static void cleanup(void); > > +unsigned long get_available_memory_mb(void) > +{ > + unsigned long long ps, pn; > + ps = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); > + pn = sysconf(_SC_AVPHYS_PAGES); > + return ps * pn / (1024*1024); What I was suggesting was: return (ps / 1024) * pn / 1024; All of the page sizes are at least 4k (grep "define PAGE_SHIFT" -r linux/arch/). This way "unsigned long" should do just fine for all variables. Ok! > +} > + > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > int lc; > @@ -73,19 +84,26 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > setup(); > > - for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) { > - tst_count = 0; > - > - tst_resm(TINFO, "allocate 100MB"); > - consume(100); > - > - inherit_fork(); > - inherit_fork2(); > - fork_malloc(); > - grandchild_maxrss(); > - zombie(); > - sig_ign(); > - exec_without_fork(); > + avail_memory_mb = get_available_memory_mb(); > + > + tst_resm(TINFO, "Available memory: %ldMB\n", avail_memory_mb); > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); We have tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "...");, which will print message, run cleanup and exit testcase. Much better! > + } else { > + for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) { > + tst_count = 0; > + > + tst_resm(TINFO, "allocate %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > + consume(DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); This consume() is within loop, and it doesn't look like same loop frees any memory. I suggest you move it before loop. You can try running the testcase with "-i 20". You are right. I didn't see this because my test run one time. I will fix. > + > + inherit_fork(); > + inherit_fork2(); > + fork_malloc(); > + grandchild_maxrss(); > + zombie(); > + sig_ign(); > + exec_without_fork(); > + } > } > cleanup(); > tst_exit(); > @@ -95,11 +113,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > * expect: initial.self ~= child.self */ > static void inherit_fork(void) > { > - tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #01: fork inherit"); > - > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_SELF, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.self = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > > + tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #01: fork inherit"); > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { Is this needed? Child is not allocating anything, and fork should use copy-on-write. During my testing, if the memory available is not the double, the test had problem. I will recheck. > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > + > switch (pid = fork()) { > case -1: > tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "fork #1"); > @@ -119,17 +141,21 @@ static void inherit_fork(void) > } > > /* Testcase #02: fork inherit (cont.) > - * expect: initial.children ~= 100MB, child.children = 0 */ > + * expect: initial.children ~= DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB, child.children = 0 */ > static void inherit_fork2(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #02: fork inherit(cont.)"); > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { Same as above. Similar to previous problem > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > if (is_in_delta(ru.ru_maxrss - 102400)) > - tst_resm(TPASS, "initial.children ~= 100MB"); > + tst_resm(TPASS, "initial.children ~= %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > else > - tst_resm(TFAIL, "initial.children !~= 100MB"); > + tst_resm(TFAIL, "initial.children !~= %dMB", DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > > switch (pid = fork()) { > case -1: > @@ -153,6 +179,10 @@ static void inherit_fork2(void) > static void fork_malloc(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #03: fork + malloc"); > + if (avail_memory_mb < (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2+50)) { Same as above, isn't "50" going to be enough? Again, similar. Thanks for your review. I will send another patch. Regards, Jan > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_SELF, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.self = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > @@ -182,6 +212,10 @@ static void fork_malloc(void) > static void grandchild_maxrss(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #04: grandchild maxrss"); > + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+300)) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > @@ -216,6 +250,10 @@ static void grandchild_maxrss(void) > static void zombie(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #05: zombie"); > + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+400)) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > @@ -259,6 +297,10 @@ static void zombie(void) > static void sig_ign(void) > { > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #06: SIG_IGN"); > + if (avail_memory_mb <= (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB+500)) { > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run test case"); > + return; > + } > > SAFE_GETRUSAGE(cleanup, RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ru); > tst_resm(TINFO, "initial.children = %ld", ru.ru_maxrss); > -- > 1.9.1 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices 2016-03-17 9:20 ` Jan Stancek 2016-03-20 13:58 ` Julio Cruz @ 2016-03-23 4:28 ` Julio Cruz Barroso [not found] ` <FF335120-237D-434A-AC4D-D88A0B2DD0E2@smartmatic.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Julio Cruz Barroso @ 2016-03-23 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi Jan, > > What I was suggesting was: > return (ps / 1024) * pn / 1024; Done. > > + > > + tst_resm(TINFO, "Available memory: %ldMB\n", avail_memory_mb); > > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB) { > > + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this case\n"); > > We have tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "...");, which will print message, run > cleanup and exit testcase. > Done. Applied also in other points. > DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > > + consume(DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > > This consume() is within loop, and it doesn't look like same loop frees any > memory. I suggest you move it before loop. > You can try running the testcase with "-i 20". Done. > > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { > > Is this needed? Child is not allocating anything, and fork should use copy-on- > write. > If before the call to fork() the available memory is not the double as DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB, the test fail (ENOMEM: fork() failed to allocate the necessary kernel structures because memory is tight). In summary (let me know if I'm wrong), the fork() 'means that all that the state is copied, including open files, register state and all memory allocations, which includes the memory used at consume() function' [ref]. However, with COW, 'rather than copy all the memory at once, it pretends it was copied and only actually copies when the parent and child need to hold different values at the same address' [ref]. According with those assumptions, the kernel need to reserve the allocated memory anyway, and that explain why I place the condition. > > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #02: fork inherit(cont.)"); > > + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { > > Same as above. > Same condition. > > tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #03: fork + malloc"); > > + if (avail_memory_mb < (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2+50)) { > > Same as above, isn't "50" going to be enough? Same assumption. If there is not memory available, the test will fail. The idea is to avoid it with the condition. > > Regards, > Jan Regards Julio [ref] some references about CoW: https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/31szui/trying_to_understand_fork_and_copyonwrite_cow/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-on-write ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <FF335120-237D-434A-AC4D-D88A0B2DD0E2@smartmatic.com>]
[parent not found: <1714664694.15587378.1459340331690.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>]
[parent not found: <AF04265A3FC2B144B9892F621A394E13EA409B66@tethys>]
[parent not found: <1024370333.16915329.1459580215038.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>]
* [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices [not found] ` <1024370333.16915329.1459580215038.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> @ 2016-04-07 10:07 ` Julio Cruz Barroso 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Julio Cruz Barroso @ 2016-04-07 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi Jan, The patch version 2 for the test case 'getrusage03' was send to the list. Thanks for your suggestions in the previous emails. In summary: - The initial 'consume' was moved out the loop - The variable 'avail_memory_mb' was remove and the function 'get_available_memory_mb' is used all the times - As concluded, the kernel not allocate the memory (for every fork) but still check if there is available. So, this is the reason to include the verification prior each test case (with fork) - In error (TCONF) the function 'tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup,...' is used - The patch was build and tested on final boards - The patch was check with 'checkpatch.pl' Regards Julio > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Stancek [mailto:jstancek@redhat.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 2:57 PM > To: Julio Cruz Barroso > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Julio Cruz Barroso" <julio.cruz@smartmatic.com> > > To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com> > > Sent: Saturday, 2 April, 2016 8:39:08 AM > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded > > devices > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Thanks for your comments. My reply inline > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jan Stancek [mailto:jstancek@redhat.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:19 PM > > > To: Julio Cruz Barroso > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded > > > devices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Julio Cruz Barroso" <julio.cruz@smartmatic.com> > > > > To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com> > > > > Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2016 2:23:11 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded > > > > devices > > > > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > > > Any comment feedback related with this test case? > > > > > > comments inline > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know to send the new patch. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Julio > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Julio Cruz Barroso > > > > <julio.cruz@smartmatic.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was suggesting was: > > > > > return (ps / 1024) * pn / 1024; > > > > > > > > Done. > > > > > > > > >> + > > > > >> + tst_resm(TINFO, "Available memory: %ldMB\n", > avail_memory_mb); > > > > >> + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB) { > > > > >> + tst_resm(TCONF, "Not enough memory to run this > > > > >> + case\n"); > > > > > > > > > > We have tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "...");, which will print > > > > > message, run cleanup and exit testcase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Done. Applied also in other points. > > > > > > > > > DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > > > > >> + consume(DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB); > > > > > > > > > > This consume() is within loop, and it doesn't look like same > > > > > loop frees any memory. I suggest you move it before loop. > > > > > You can try running the testcase with "-i 20". > > > > > > > > Done. > > > > > > > > >> + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { > > > > > > > > > > Is this needed? Child is not allocating anything, and fork > > > > > should use > > > > > copy-on- > > > > > write. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If before the call to fork() the available memory is not the > > > > double as DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB, the test fail (ENOMEM: fork() > > > > failed to allocate the necessary kernel structures because memory is > tight). > > > > > > > > In summary (let me know if I'm wrong), the fork() 'means that all > > > > that the state is copied, including open files, register state and > > > > all memory allocations, which includes the memory used at consume() > function' > > > [ref]. > > > > However, with COW, 'rather than copy all the memory at once, it > > > > pretends it was copied and only actually copies when the parent > > > > and child need to hold different values at the same address' [ref]. > > > > According with those assumptions, the kernel need to reserve the > > > > allocated memory anyway, and that explain why I place the condition. > > > > > > I don't think kernel is going to reserve any memory. But, there is > > > still a possibility that it will make an overcommit check > > > (depending on vm.overcommit_memory). > > > So to check for memory that's needed for fork is OK. > > > > I agree with you. I don’t think there is an reservation but somehow > > there is a checking. About your suggestion with overcommit_memory, my > > current system has CommitLimit 254884 kB in /proc/meminfo. > > > > root@emad:~# cat /proc/meminfo > > MemTotal: 509768 kB > > MemFree: 323228 kB > > MemAvailable: 346020 kB > > Buffers: 6712 kB > > Cached: 26384 kB > > SwapCached: 0 kB > > Active: 16224 kB > > Inactive: 20420 kB > > Active(anon): 3652 kB > > Inactive(anon): 4340 kB > > Active(file): 12572 kB > > Inactive(file): 16080 kB > > Unevictable: 0 kB > > Mlocked: 0 kB > > HighTotal: 0 kB > > HighFree: 0 kB > > LowTotal: 509768 kB > > LowFree: 323228 kB > > SwapTotal: 0 kB > > SwapFree: 0 kB > > Dirty: 0 kB > > Writeback: 0 kB > > AnonPages: 3544 kB > > Mapped: 7804 kB > > Shmem: 4448 kB > > Slab: 8624 kB > > SReclaimable: 3028 kB > > SUnreclaim: 5596 kB > > KernelStack: 648 kB > > PageTables: 344 kB > > NFS_Unstable: 0 kB > > Bounce: 0 kB > > WritebackTmp: 0 kB > > CommitLimit: 254884 kB > > Committed_AS: 27428 kB > > VmallocTotal: 1548288 kB > > VmallocUsed: 5856 kB > > VmallocChunk: 1365276 kB > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #02: fork inherit(cont.)"); > > > > >> + if (avail_memory_mb < DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2) { > > > > > > In which case there should be no "*2", because memory in parent is > > > already allocated. You should need the same amount in child, right? > > > This is now checking, that we have twice the available memory that > > > parent allocated. > > > > I understand you point. But in this case, the variable > > "avail_memory_mb" is set in the beginning. > > I missed that. You're right then it needs to be "DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2". > > Regards, > Jan > > > Maybe, to avoid confusions, I could set this variable every time. > > > > If you thinks is OK, I could remake another patch version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same condition. > > > > > > > > >> tst_resm(TINFO, "Testcase #03: fork + malloc"); > > > > >> + if (avail_memory_mb < (DEFAULT_ALLOCATION_MB*2+50)) { > > > > > > Same here. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same as above, isn't "50" going to be enough? > > > > > > > > Same assumption. If there is not memory available, the test will fail. > > > > The idea is to avoid it with the condition. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Julio > > > > > > > > [ref] some references about CoW: > > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/31szui/trying_to_underst > > > > and_ fork_and_copyonwrite_cow/ > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-on-write > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-04-07 10:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-03-16 3:01 [LTP] [PATCH] Check available memory to support embedded devices Julio Cruz
2016-03-17 9:20 ` Jan Stancek
2016-03-20 13:58 ` Julio Cruz
2016-03-23 4:28 ` Julio Cruz Barroso
[not found] ` <FF335120-237D-434A-AC4D-D88A0B2DD0E2@smartmatic.com>
[not found] ` <1714664694.15587378.1459340331690.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <AF04265A3FC2B144B9892F621A394E13EA409B66@tethys>
[not found] ` <1024370333.16915329.1459580215038.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
2016-04-07 10:07 ` Julio Cruz Barroso
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox