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

[Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>]

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?

r~