On 2024/5/30 8:29, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:55:51 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> Basing on the lib/objpool.c, change it to something like a >> ptrpool, so that we can utilize that to test the correctness >> and performance of the page_frag. >> >> The testing is done by ensuring that the fragments allocated >> from a frag_frag_cache instance is pushed into a ptrpool >> instance in a kthread binded to a specified cpu, and a kthread >> binded to a specified cpu will pop the fragmemt from the > > fragment > >> ptrpool and free the fragmemt. >> >> We may refactor out the common part between objpool and ptrpool >> if this ptrpool thing turns out to be helpful for other place. > > Is this test actually meaningfully testing page_frag or rather > the objpool construct and the scheduler? :S For the objpool part, I guess it is ok to say that it is a meaningfully testing for both page_frag and objpool if there is changing to either of them. For the scheduler part, this test provides the below module param to avoid the the noise from scheduler. +static int test_push_cpu; +module_param(test_push_cpu, int, 0600); +MODULE_PARM_DESC(test_push_cpu, "test cpu for pushing fragment"); + +static int test_pop_cpu; +module_param(test_pop_cpu, int, 0600); +MODULE_PARM_DESC(test_pop_cpu, "test cpu for popping fragment"); Or is there any better idea for testing page_frag? Thanks for taking a look. > > . >
