Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] selftests: memcg: Allow low event with no memory.low and memory_recursiveprot on
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Waiman Long llong@redhat.com wrote:
Am I correct to assume that the purpose of 1d09069f5313f ("selftests: memcg: expect no low events in unprotected sibling") is to force a failure in the test_memcg_low test to force a change in the current behavior? Or was it the case that it didn't fail when you submit your patch?
Yes, the failure had been intended to mark unexpected mode of reclaim (there's still a reproducer somewhere in the references). However, I learnt that: a) it ain't easy to fix, b) the only occurence of the troublesome behavior was in the test and never reported by users in real life.
I've started to prefer the variant where the particular check is indefinite since that.
HTH, Michal
On 4/23/25 12:49 PM, Michal Koutný wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Waiman Long llong@redhat.com wrote:
Am I correct to assume that the purpose of 1d09069f5313f ("selftests: memcg: expect no low events in unprotected sibling") is to force a failure in the test_memcg_low test to force a change in the current behavior? Or was it the case that it didn't fail when you submit your patch?
Yes, the failure had been intended to mark unexpected mode of reclaim (there's still a reproducer somewhere in the references). However, I learnt that: a) it ain't easy to fix, b) the only occurence of the troublesome behavior was in the test and never reported by users in real life.
I've started to prefer the variant where the particular check is indefinite since that.
OK, I will update the patch as you had suggested. I am fine doing that, just that I did not understand why you wanted the result to be undefined in the first place.
Cheers, Longman
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Michal Koutný -
Waiman Long