On 21.06.24 09:25, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 20/06/2024 12:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 20.06.24 11:04, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 20/06/2024 01:26, Barry Song wrote:
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
Both Ryan and Chris have been utilizing the small test program to aid
in debugging and identifying issues with swap entry allocation. While
a real or intricate workload might be more suitable for assessing the
correctness and effectiveness of the swap allocation policy, a small
test program presents a simpler means of understanding the problem and
initially verifying the improvements being made.
Let's endeavor to integrate it into the self-test suite. Although it
presently only accommodates 64KB and 4KB, I'm optimistic that we can
expand its capabilities to support multiple sizes and simulate more
complex systems in the future as required.
I'll try to summarize the thread with Huang Ying by suggesting this test program
is "neccessary but not sufficient" to exhaustively test the mTHP swap-out path.
I've certainly found it useful and think it would be a valuable addition to the
tree.
That said, I'm not convinced it is a selftest; IMO a selftest should provide a
clear pass/fail result against some criteria and must be able to be run
automatically by (e.g.) a CI system.
Likely we should then consider moving other such performance-related thingies
out of the selftests?
Yes, that would get my vote. But of the 4 tests you mentioned that use
clock_gettime(), it looks like transhuge-stress is the only one that doesn't
have a pass/fail result, so is probably the only candidate for moving.
The others either use the times as a timeout and determines failure if the
action didn't occur within the timeout (e.g. ksm_tests.c) or use it to add some
supplemental performance information to an otherwise functionality-oriented test.
Likely for ksm it would make sense to move the really functional parts
to ksm_function_tests.c.
Fur gup_test it might be similar.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
