On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:05 PM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm not debating whether your test case is correct or not, or whether the > numbers are correct or not. The point is that 3 out of 4 people from mm list > who have looked at this patch have no idea what it's trying to do, why it's > important, or why these numbers *should* necessarily be wrong. > > It's good that you have provided a way to demonstrate the effects of your > changes, but one can't solve cognitive gaps with testing. If one could, then > things like TDD would be effective on complex projects -- but they aren't[0]. > > We're really getting off in the weeds here, though. I just want to make it > clear to you that if you think "more testing" is a solution to kernel ailments > like this, you're going to be disappointed. > > 0: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~csstmms/FucciEtAl_ESEM2016.pdf Hi Chris, Pls. answer my question directly - what should protection be if memcg is the target memcg ? If you can't answer my quesiont, I suggest to revist your patch. -- Thanks Yafang
