From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SsCur-000839-6g for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:06:45 +0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1SsCul-0006BS-P2 for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:06:45 +0000 Message-ID: <500957D7.8000600@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:06:31 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Luk=E1=9A_Doktor?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <500952EC.6050504@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <500952EC.6050504@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] Broken kernel/mem/ksm01 test List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, Cleber Rosa , vlee@twitter.com On 07/20/2012 02:45 PM, Luk=E1=9A Doktor wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm testing LTP-20120614 on Fedora 17 and it always stuck on ksm01 test. > > I went through sources and the problem is I have KSM already enabled = > so the full_scans is a huge number. The function _group_check waits = > till KSM does 3 * full_scans which in my case never ends (well it = > might finish in a couple of years). > > To me it doesn't even make sense to wait 3 * full_scans as in the = > first check it waits 1-2 seconds, in second check it waits few seconds = > and it keeps growing further you goes. > > Would you please take look on this issue? I'd really appreciate it. > > Kind regards, > Luk=E1=9A Doktor Anyway if you think it should stay 3 * full_scans would you please at = least reset the counter before the test start? --- _mem.c 2012-07-20 13:39:20.351738873 +0200 +++ mem.c 2012-07-20 14:58:52.192157167 +0200 @@ -415,6 +415,7 @@ void create_same_memory(int size, int nu } } tst_resm(TINFO, "KSM merging..."); + write_file(PATH_KSM "run", "2"); write_file(PATH_KSM "run", "1"); snprintf(buf, BUFSIZ, "%ld", size * pages * num); write_file(PATH_KSM "pages_to_scan", buf); I tested it and it works better (it fails, but at least it finishes). = Anyway IMO it would be better to calculate the number of necessarily = scans differently. regards, Luk=E1=9A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and = threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions = will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware = threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list