Re: Possible bug - LTP failure for memcg

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed 13-05-15 18:29:13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
[...]
> memcg_function_test   22  TFAIL  :  ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4095,
> limit_in_bytes=0
> memcg_function_test   23  TFAIL  :  ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4097,
> limit_in_bytes=4096
> memcg_function_test   24  TFAIL  :  ltpapicmd.c:190: input=1,
> limit_in_bytes=0

Before we go and fix these test cases. Do they make any sense at all?
Why should anybody even care that the limit is in page units? I do not
see anything like that mentioned in the documentation. Sure having
the limit in page size units makes a lot of sense from the
implementation POV but should userspace care? Would something break if
we change internals and allow also !page_aligned values? I have hard
time to imagine that.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux