The patch titled
Subject: selftests: memcg: remove protection from top level memcg
has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is
selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg.patch
This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: selftests: memcg: remove protection from top level memcg
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 18:18:58 +0200
The reclaim is triggered by memory limit in a subtree, therefore the
testcase does not need configured protection against external reclaim.
Also, correct respective comments
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220518161859.21565-5-mkoutny@xxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 10 +++-------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c~selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg
+++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const cha
/*
* First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
- * A memory.min = 50M, memory.max = 200M
+ * A memory.min = 0, memory.max = 200M
* A/B memory.min = 50M
* A/B/C memory.min = 75M, memory.current = 50M
* A/B/D memory.min = 25M, memory.current = 50M
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const cha
* Usages are pagecache, but the test keeps a running
* process in every leaf cgroup.
* Then it creates A/G and creates a significant
- * memory pressure in it.
+ * memory pressure in A.
*
* Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that:
* A/B memory.current ~= 50M
@@ -338,8 +338,6 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *ro
(void *)(long)fd);
}
- if (cg_write(parent[0], "memory.min", "50M"))
- goto cleanup;
if (cg_write(parent[1], "memory.min", "50M"))
goto cleanup;
if (cg_write(children[0], "memory.min", "75M"))
@@ -407,7 +405,7 @@ cleanup:
/*
* First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
- * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M
+ * A memory.low = 0, memory.max = 200M
* A/B memory.low = 50M
* A/B/C memory.low = 75M, memory.current = 50M
* A/B/D memory.low = 25M, memory.current = 50M
@@ -495,8 +493,6 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *ro
goto cleanup;
}
- if (cg_write(parent[0], "memory.low", "50M"))
- goto cleanup;
if (cg_write(parent[1], "memory.low", "50M"))
goto cleanup;
if (cg_write(children[0], "memory.low", "75M"))
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from mkoutny@xxxxxxxx are
selftests-memcg-fix-compilation.patch
selftests-memcg-expect-no-low-events-in-unprotected-sibling.patch
selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups.patch
selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg.patch
selftests-memcg-factor-out-common-parts-of-memorylowmin-tests.patch
