From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Wang Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:09:01 +0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] lib: use TCONF if hpage reserve failed in retry Message-ID: <20200526070901.12957-1-liwang@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Test still easy to get fail in?hpages?reserving (only 80% of max_hpages) because of memory fragmentation. ? tst_hugepage.c:46: BROK: nr_hugepages = 171, but expect 255 ? ? But it seems unkind and useless to exit with TBROK when failed in hpage reserve retrying. This patch proposes to use TCONF for better log review. Signed-off-by: Li Wang Cc: Jan Stancek --- lib/tst_hugepage.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/tst_hugepage.c b/lib/tst_hugepage.c index 52667a14e..f2bf5d20e 100644 --- a/lib/tst_hugepage.c +++ b/lib/tst_hugepage.c @@ -43,7 +43,9 @@ unsigned long tst_request_hugepages(unsigned long hpages) SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(PATH_NR_HPAGES, "%lu", tst_hugepages); SAFE_FILE_SCANF(PATH_NR_HPAGES, "%lu", &val); if (val != tst_hugepages) - tst_brk(TBROK, "nr_hugepages = %lu, but expect %lu", val, tst_hugepages); + tst_brk(TCONF, "nr_hugepages = %lu, but expect %lu. " + "Not enough hugepages for testing.", + val, tst_hugepages); tst_res(TINFO, "%lu hugepage(s) reserved", tst_hugepages); out: -- 2.21.1