On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:59, Zi Yan wrote:
On 8 Aug 2025, at 11:56, Zi Yan wrote:
On 7 Aug 2025, at 4:27, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard coded the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but we already have the number passed in.
Do the check based on the number of hugepage passed in is more reasonable.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c index 44a3f8a58806..bf40e6b121ab 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hp unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after; size_t i;
- if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize)) ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
rss_anon_before = rss_anon();
Which commit is this patch based on?
In mm-new[1], verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes() accepts char *one_page and size_t len but no nr_hpages. This breaks split_huge_page_test.c compilation.
Are you forgetting some cleanup patches before this one?
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/tree/tools/testi...
Hi Andrew,
Can you drop this one for now? Thanks.
Wait. It seems that mm-new is different from Linus' tree[1]. I wonder what is going on.
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tool...
Wei, it seems that you lost the race to Muhammad Usama Anjum's cleanup patch[1]. You might need to add nr_hpages back.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250731160132.1795351-6-usama.anjum@collabora.c...
-- Best Regards, Yan, Zi