From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/get_mempolicy01: Rewrite to new API
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 23:10:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201209221056.GB69775@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <X9DO3uytgBaTrVwi@yuki.lan>
Hi Cyril,
...
> > - if (!is_numa(NULL, NH_MEMS, 1))
> > - tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "requires NUMA with at least 1 node");
> > + if (get_allowed_nodes(NH_MEMS, 1, &test_node) < 0)
> > + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "get_allowed_nodes failed");
> The is_numa() and get_allowed_nodes() is deprecated API, we do have new
> tst_get_nodemap() function that replaces them. See set_mempolicy()
> testcases for reference.
Thanks!
> > - TEST_PAUSE;
> > - tst_tmpdir();
> > + nodemask = numa_allocate_nodemask();
> > + getnodemask = numa_allocate_nodemask();
> > + numa_bitmask_setbit(nodemask, test_node);
> > }
> > -#else
> > -int main(void)
> > +static void do_test(unsigned int i)
> > {
> > - tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, NUMA_ERROR_MSG);
> > + struct test_case *tc = &tcase[i];
> > + int policy;
> > +
> > + tst_res(TINFO, "test #%d: %s", (i+1), tc->desc);
> > +
> > + setup_node();
> > +
> > + if (tc->pre_test)
> > + if (tc->pre_test(i) == -1)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (tc->test) {
> > + tc->test(i);
> > +
> > + if (TST_RET < 0) {
> > + tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, ".test failed");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + }
> We call test_mbind() here for each iteration which calls mmap()
> and the memory is never freed. Which means that this will fail sooner or
> later with the -i option.
> Why can't we allocate all the blocks with different mempolicy and
> or/bind the memory once in the test setup instead? We can keep the
> callback in-place as they are we just need to loop over them in the
> setup() instead. Also I would rename them to alloc, setup, or something
> like that so that it's clear that they are just preparing the
> environment and not doing the actuall test.
Thanks for catching this. I actually run it more with -i500,
but it looks laptop has enough memory :). Anyway, what you suggest is obviously
much better solution, thanks!
> Also I would pass the struct test_case pointer to these instead of i
> since they convert the i to the testcase pointer as the first thing
> anyways.
+1
Kind regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-09 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-08 13:28 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/get_mempolicy01: Rewrite to new API Petr Vorel
2020-12-08 13:54 ` Petr Vorel
2020-12-09 13:19 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-12-09 22:10 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2021-01-06 11:23 ` Petr Vorel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201209221056.GB69775@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox