From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D033879F3; Thu, 30 May 2024 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717028980; cv=none; b=Pp3QHM+w4SLuog+a9rWeO1vsLPlcmqfF/A1GulxQGfJ/4SK80WT2Ho6AOiGOfm5sapWGQxHRFU+TXvvqOK2eV4YGDTa2/W65QwMUdxlX69GRFDX5N00DvFeqFCyHq5V2IInkHYgAICvTB8TMZLzInzxTMCFP2TOtb+RY5GQyzy8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717028980; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fEP+M8KbG0s825x+RU/s5AgYR04x7FtEYG8ZhtE3mC0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pvqYKV+InakIIvw3HSREMvdc6xe8D840MBLkbRR0JEPm0HcgDKy0GpgPswI0teXabCg+4c4/78UctEvRSAhcw8CvFO6KZyhOUuL5Ntusfx9ir102flnE2pQswMKUKx2Po+93RRMmMnbrLLd3zKQj9hmfYX0nbqQdCnnVlCGi39g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=uufFWBty; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uufFWBty" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCE0BC113CC; Thu, 30 May 2024 00:29:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1717028980; bh=fEP+M8KbG0s825x+RU/s5AgYR04x7FtEYG8ZhtE3mC0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uufFWBty26DjvFtaqYGmWOgTd5LPUK+oABjlrleWSPIf2MIdwPgiT3N7MvFkjh0lM JEMBgrhW7zpEr7Fso/3HG1cgh7R1ZNmbc2W1mBYpAt3COehPuJc0LqDzdZj/d4OJCc GA8Jc0byhbSrE8cgoev7WFUb7XILexTBZY3rybiSzLcPuqkgtPV+H8NPX06Vh0aw8R cV4i1Bi+qmhpjP92Pqz8YpfC55tWa/VkcanyHs5ZLC2wvSXd3qikHAD+bO52g9Xtz7 JgafSECxfIXWcTLZ1uIfBvGXtESa6GUcQJqDfUa+lorbO6/2Ks++4NOt3PVvd4bo5n WVZvRdyJ0gfLw== Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:29:38 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Yunsheng Lin Cc: , , , , Alexander Duyck , Andrew Morton , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/13] mm: page_frag: add a test module for page_frag Message-ID: <20240529172938.3a83784d@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20240528125604.63048-2-linyunsheng@huawei.com> References: <20240528125604.63048-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <20240528125604.63048-2-linyunsheng@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:55:51 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: > Basing on the lib/objpool.c, change it to something like a > ptrpool, so that we can utilize that to test the correctness > and performance of the page_frag. > > The testing is done by ensuring that the fragments allocated > from a frag_frag_cache instance is pushed into a ptrpool > instance in a kthread binded to a specified cpu, and a kthread > binded to a specified cpu will pop the fragmemt from the fragment > ptrpool and free the fragmemt. > > We may refactor out the common part between objpool and ptrpool > if this ptrpool thing turns out to be helpful for other place. Is this test actually meaningfully testing page_frag or rather the objpool construct and the scheduler? :S