On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:05 PM Chris Down chris@chrisdown.name wrote:
I'm not debating whether your test case is correct or not, or whether the numbers are correct or not. The point is that 3 out of 4 people from mm list who have looked at this patch have no idea what it's trying to do, why it's important, or why these numbers *should* necessarily be wrong.
It's good that you have provided a way to demonstrate the effects of your changes, but one can't solve cognitive gaps with testing. If one could, then things like TDD would be effective on complex projects -- but they aren't[0].
We're really getting off in the weeds here, though. I just want to make it clear to you that if you think "more testing" is a solution to kernel ailments like this, you're going to be disappointed.
0: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~csstmms/FucciEtAl_ESEM2016.pdf
Hi Chris,
Pls. answer my question directly - what should protection be if memcg is the target memcg ? If you can't answer my quesiont, I suggest to revist your patch.