Re: [PATCH] tests/functional/x86_64: Accept a few locked pages in test_memlock.py

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 16/09/2025 18.55, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 9/15/25 22:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 16/09/2025 03.38, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 9/15/25 11:55, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>> Startup of libgcrypt locks a small pool of pages -- by default 16k.
>>>> Testing for zero locked pages is isn't correct, while testing for
>>>> 32k is a decent compromise.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   tests/functional/x86_64/test_memlock.py | 3 ++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/functional/x86_64/test_memlock.py b/tests/functional/ 
>>>> x86_64/ test_memlock.py
>>>> index 2b515ff979..81bce80b0c 100755
>>>> --- a/tests/functional/x86_64/test_memlock.py
>>>> +++ b/tests/functional/x86_64/test_memlock.py
>>>> @@ -37,7 +37,8 @@ def test_memlock_off(self):
>>>>           status = self.get_process_status_values(self.vm.get_pid())
>>>> -        self.assertTrue(status['VmLck'] == 0)
>>>> +        # libgcrypt may mlock a few pages
>>>> +        self.assertTrue(status['VmLck'] < 32)
>>>>       def test_memlock_on(self):
>>>>           self.common_vm_setup_with_memlock('on')
>>>
>>> I wonder if I should have chosen 64k, which might be one 64k page...
>>
>> It's a x86 test, so we should not have to worry about 64k pages there, I 
>> hope?
> 
> Fair enough, though it does beg the question of why it's an x86-specific 
> test.  Don't all host architectures support memory locking?

I guess you need at least a target machine that runs a firmware by default, 
since this test does not download any assets...?

  Thomas