Re: Possible bug - LTP failure for memcg

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed 13-05-15 18:29:13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
[...]
> memcg_function_test   22  TFAIL  :  ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4095,
> limit_in_bytes=0
> memcg_function_test   23  TFAIL  :  ltpapicmd.c:190: input=4097,
> limit_in_bytes=4096
> memcg_function_test   24  TFAIL  :  ltpapicmd.c:190: input=1,
> limit_in_bytes=0

Before we go and fix these test cases. Do they make any sense at all?
Why should anybody even care that the limit is in page units? I do not
see anything like that mentioned in the documentation. Sure having
the limit in page size units makes a lot of sense from the
implementation POV but should userspace care? Would something break if
we change internals and allow also !page_aligned values? I have hard
time to imagine that.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]