On Tue 17-12-19 10:05:06, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Cc: Eric > > On 12/17/19 1:00 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 16-12-19 13:44:53, Waiman Long wrote: > >> On 12/16/19 10:38 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > > [...] > >>>> Can you extract guts of the testcase and integrate them into hugetlb > >>>> test suite? > >> > >> BTW, what hugetlb test suite are you talking about? > > > > I was using tests from libhugetlbfs package in the past. There are few > > tests in LTP project but the libhugetlbfs coverage used to cover the > > largest part of the functionality. > > > > Is there any newer home for the package than [1], Mike? Btw. would it > > mak sense to migrate those tests to a more common place, LTP or kernel > > selftests? > > That is the latest home/release for libhugetlbfs. > > The libhugetlbfs test suite is somewhat strange in that I suspect it started > as testing for libhugetlbfs itself. When it was written, the thought may have > been that people would use libhugetlfs as the primary interface to hugetlb > pages. That is not the case today. Over time, hugetlbfs tests not associated > with libhugetlbfs were added. > > If we want to migrate libhugetlbfs tests, then I think we would only want to > migrate the non-libhugetlbfs test cases. Although, the libhugetlbfs specific > tests are useful as they 'could' point out regressions. Yeah, I can second that. I remember using the suite and it pointed to real issues when I was touching the area in the past. So if we can get as many tests to be independent on the library and integrate it to some existing testing project - be it kernel selftest or LTP - then it would be really great and I assume the testing coverage of the hugetlb functionality would increase dramatically. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
