From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 02:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [LTP] =?utf-8?q?=E2=9D=8C_FAIL=3A_Waiting_for_review=3A_Test_rep?= =?utf-8?q?ort_for_kernel_5=2E6=2E14-dbf782f=2Ecki_=28stable-queue=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <2102236949.13452256.1590328678642.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <1440024610.13546915.1590416134343.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <218996157.13586289.1590473519056.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:15 PM Jan Stancek wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > s390x: > > > > > ? LTP > > > > > > > > @Li, any thoughts on hugetlb TBROKs here? I thought you said > > > > 'request_hugepages' > > > > was not supposed to be hard test requirement. > > > > > > > > > > The hugemmap05.c doesn't goes the new 'request_hugepages' way in the huge > > > page reserving. it tries to reserve 128 hpages and overcommits 192 hpages > > > in hard coding, and probably touch the memory available uplimit on s390x. > > > static long size = 128, length = 384; > > > ... > > > addr = SAFE_MMAP(ADDR, (length / 2 * hugepagesize), PROTECTION, FLAGS, > > fd, > > > 0); > > > > > > We could convert this to use the new request_hugepages API and do the > > > requested number of huge page checking at setup() to make sure the system > > > only running in a reasonable situation. > > > > Sorry, I didn't make it clear I was talking about hugemmap06. The patch is > > OK, > > since it makes both use request_hugepages API. But should we also do > > something > > with this TBROK? > > > > It seems unkind and useless to exit with TBROK when failed to reserve with > 80% max_hpages again. I'm thinking if it could be directly replaced by > TCONF to skip the whole test? I think it can fail even when request is less than 80%, when memory is too fragmented. I agree with TCONF, but I'd keep numbers (val, tst_hugepages) in output, so we know how close it was to the requested number. > > --- a/lib/tst_hugepage.c > +++ b/lib/tst_hugepage.c > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ 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, "Not enough hugepages for testing."); > > tst_res(TINFO, "%lu hugepage(s) reserved", tst_hugepages); > out: > > > > > > tst_hugepage.c:46: BROK: nr_hugepages = 171, but expect 255 > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Li Wang >