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();
On 2025/8/7 16:27, 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
Yes. LGTM. Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.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();
On 8/7/25 1:57 PM, 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();
LGTM
reviewed-by: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com
On 07.08.25 10:27, 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
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com
On 2025/8/8 09:27, 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
Yes. LGTM. Reviewed-by: wang lian lianux.mm@gmail.com
Best regards, wang lian
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.
-- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
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...
-- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
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
On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 12:01:47 -0400 Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com wrote:
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...
Ah, thanks, I'll drop this version of "selftests/mm: do check_huge_anon() with a number been passed in".
On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 12:01:47PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
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...
Thanks.
My patch is based on mm-unstable. So currently we base commit on mm-new?
-- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
Yeah just hit this,
Adnrew - can we please drop this patch from mm-new for now? It's breaking the mm self tests build.
Maybe then Wei you can do a v2 rebased on current state of mm self tests?
Thanks!
On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 12:01:47PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
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
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
Yeah just hit this,
Adnrew - can we please drop this patch from mm-new for now? It's breaking the mm self tests build.
Maybe then Wei you can do a v2 rebased on current state of mm self tests?
Yup, v2 is on its way.
Thanks!
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Andrew Morton -
Baolin Wang -
David Hildenbrand -
Donet Tom -
Lorenzo Stoakes -
wang lian -
Wei Yang -
Zi Yan