On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:59:56 -0700 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 07:18:11PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote: > > The reclaim is triggered by memory limit in a subtree, therefore the > > testcase does not need configured protection against external reclaim. > > > > Also, correct/deduplicate respective comments > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 12 ++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > > index 9ffacf024bbd..9d370aafd799 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > > @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup) > > > > /* > > * First, this test creates the following hierarchy: > > - * A memory.min = 50M, memory.max = 200M > > + * A memory.min = 0, memory.max = 200M > > * A/B memory.min = 50M, memory.current = 50M > > * A/B/C memory.min = 75M, memory.current = 50M > > * A/B/D memory.min = 25M, memory.current = 50M > > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup) > > * Usages are pagecache, but the test keeps a running > > * process in every leaf cgroup. > > * Then it creates A/G and creates a significant > > - * memory pressure in it. > > + * memory pressure in A. > > * > > * A/B memory.current ~= 50M > > * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M > > @@ -335,8 +335,6 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) > > (void *)(long)fd); > > } > > > > - if (cg_write(parent[0], "memory.min", "50M")) > > - goto cleanup; > > if (cg_write(parent[1], "memory.min", "50M")) > > goto cleanup; > > if (cg_write(children[0], "memory.min", "75M")) > > @@ -404,8 +402,8 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) > > > > /* > > * First, this test creates the following hierarchy: > > - * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M > > - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = 50M > > + * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M > > + * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ... > > Can you, please, just remove "memory.current = ...", it's not > because obvious what "..." means here. > You mean this? --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c~selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg-fix +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -403,15 +403,14 @@ cleanup: /* * First, this test creates the following hierarchy: * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = ... + * A/B memory.low = 50M * A/B/C memory.low = 75M, memory.current = 50M * A/B/D memory.low = 25M, memory.current = 50M * A/B/E memory.low = 0, memory.current = 50M * A/B/F memory.low = 500M, memory.current = 0 * * Usages are pagecache. - * Then it creates A/G an creates a significant - * memory pressure in it. + * Then it creates A/G and creates significant memory pressure in it. * * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: * A/B memory.current ~= 50M _ (includes gratuitous comment cleanup) I assume your comment in https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yn6pBPq+lAXm9NG8@carbon can be addressed in a later patch. I'm not sure what to amke of https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon Do we feel this series needs more work before merging it up?
