From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SwUir-0000fV-3r for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:56:05 +0000 Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SwUil-0003KP-Dd for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:56:05 +0000 Received: by pbbrq2 with SMTP id rq2so696818pbb.34 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5018EF13.2040604@casparzhang.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:55:47 +0800 From: Caspar Zhang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <402709823.5725690.1343720288429.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <402709823.5725690.1343720288429.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH/RFE 2/2] mm: use new numa_helper List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jan Stancek Cc: LTP List On 07/31/2012 03:38 PM, Jan Stancek wrote: > Hi Caspar, > > ------- snip -------- > + ret = get_allowed_nodes(NH_MEMS|NH_CPUS, 2, &nd1, &nd2); > + switch (ret) { > + case 0: > + tst_resm(TINFO, "get node%lu.", nd2); > + return nd2; > + case -3: > + /* > + * for unbalanced NUMA systems, at least 1 available node is > + * required. > + */ > + ret = get_allowed_nodes(NH_MEMS|NH_CPUS, 1, &nd1); > + switch (ret) { > + case 0: > + tst_resm(TINFO, "get node%lu.", nd1); > + return nd1; > + case -3: > + tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup_fn, "require a NUMA system " > + "that has at least one node with both " > + "memory and cpu available."); > + default: > + tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup_fn, > + "3rd get_allowed_nodes"); > + } > + } > + tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup_fn, "2nd get_allowed_nodes"); > ------- snip -------- > > I'm not sure I follow this snippet. > So if there are 2+ nodes, it takes second one. If there is just one, it will take that one. > Can't it take always first one? It was the original design. Since a non-NUMA system have 1 node, the first (and the only) node should have been tested already in ksm01/oom01/etc cases. To increase test coverage, we chose 2nd node on NUMA system. As to the fallback to 1 node design, if an unbalanced system only contains 1 available node, we still want to test NUMA in separate case, ksm01/oom01/etc cases would probably fail to cover it. Do you think it will affect test coverage if we always test first node? Thanks, Caspar > > Regards, > Jan > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Caspar Zhang" >> To: "LTP List" >> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July, 2012 4:57:19 AM >> Subject: [LTP] [PATCH/RFE 2/2] mm: use new numa_helper >> >> >> This patch makes the tests in mem/ dir use numa_helper in >> libkerntest. >> >> Signed-off-by: Caspar Zhang >> --- >> testcases/kernel/mem/cpuset/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/cpuset/cpuset01.c | 16 +++--- >> testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/Makefile.inc | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/include/mem.h | 2 +- >> testcases/kernel/mem/ksm/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/ksm/ksm02.c | 9 ++-- >> testcases/kernel/mem/ksm/ksm04.c | 9 ++-- >> testcases/kernel/mem/lib/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c | 61 >> +++++++++++++++++------ >> testcases/kernel/mem/oom/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/oom/oom02.c | 4 -- >> testcases/kernel/mem/oom/oom04.c | 4 -- >> testcases/kernel/mem/swapping/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/thp/Makefile | 1 + >> testcases/kernel/mem/tunable/Makefile | 1 + >> 16 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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