| Message ID | 20220222124547.14396-2-rpalethorpe@suse.com |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere |
| Headers | show |
| Series | memcontrol04 | expand |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:45:46PM +0000, Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com> wrote: > This changes the effect of trunk nodes' memory.low and memory.min on > their leaf nodes. So we need to change the expectations of some tests. How much are LTP runs striving to not affect environment? IIRC, the memory_recursiveprot is "remountable"; in the long-term it's likely worth watching the memory_recursiveprot behavior only. I.e. instead of carrying two sets of expectations you can warp the environment for the set that's more likely. Michal
Hello Michal, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:45:46PM +0000, Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com> wrote: >> This changes the effect of trunk nodes' memory.low and memory.min on >> their leaf nodes. So we need to change the expectations of some tests. > > How much are LTP runs striving to not affect environment? As a general rule we try to leave the environment as we found it so that testing is more deterministic. For the CGroup testing in particular I decided not to change anything so that we do not have to worry about how the init system will react. > IIRC, the memory_recursiveprot is "remountable"; in the long-term it's > likely worth watching the memory_recursiveprot behavior only. > > I.e. instead of carrying two sets of expectations you can warp the > environment for the set that's more likely. > > Michal Thinking about it, the reason why I was testing without memory_recursiveprot is because I'm just direct booting the kernel with bash as init and running the test. So the LTP is mounting the CGroups and it should mount with memory_recursiveprot, but it is not. Probably we have to support older products as well which don't have memory_recursiveprot enabled and are using V2 (unlikely I guess, but it is safest to assume this is the case). So we can still run the test, but report CONF instead of PASS/FAIL. This way we will at least still catch kernel warnings and panics.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:59 PM Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de> wrote: > Hello Michal, > > Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:45:46PM +0000, Richard Palethorpe < > rpalethorpe@suse.com> wrote: > >> This changes the effect of trunk nodes' memory.low and memory.min on > >> their leaf nodes. So we need to change the expectations of some tests. > > > > How much are LTP runs striving to not affect environment? > > As a general rule we try to leave the environment as we found it so that > testing is more deterministic. For the CGroup testing in particular I > decided not to change anything so that we do not have to worry about how > the init system will react. > +1 > > > IIRC, the memory_recursiveprot is "remountable"; in the long-term it's > > likely worth watching the memory_recursiveprot behavior only. > > > > I.e. instead of carrying two sets of expectations you can warp the > > environment for the set that's more likely. > > > > Michal > > Thinking about it, the reason why I was testing without > memory_recursiveprot is because I'm just direct booting the kernel with > bash as init and running the test. So the LTP is mounting the CGroups > and it should mount with memory_recursiveprot, but it is not. > > Probably we have to support older products as well which don't have > memory_recursiveprot enabled and are using V2 (unlikely I guess, but it > is safest to assume this is the case). So we can still run the test, but > report CONF instead of PASS/FAIL. This way we will at least still catch > kernel warnings and panics. > This sounds reasonable at least to me. Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
diff --git a/include/tst_cgroup.h b/include/tst_cgroup.h index d32d62399..b822798e0 100644 --- a/include/tst_cgroup.h +++ b/include/tst_cgroup.h @@ -215,4 +215,7 @@ int safe_cg_occursin(const char *file, const int lineno, const char *const file_name, const char *const needle); +int tst_cg_memory_recursiveprot(void) + __attribute__ ((warn_unused_result)); + #endif /* TST_CGROUP_H */ diff --git a/lib/tst_cgroup.c b/lib/tst_cgroup.c index dc090b70a..01fa55e5b 100644 --- a/lib/tst_cgroup.c +++ b/lib/tst_cgroup.c @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ struct cgroup_root { int we_mounted_it:1; /* cpuset is in compatability mode */ int no_cpuset_prefix:1; + /* V2 is mounted with memory_recursive_prot */ + int memory_recursiveprot:1; }; /* Controller sub-systems */ @@ -368,7 +370,7 @@ static void cgroup_root_scan(const char *const mnt_type, const struct cgroup_ctrl *const_ctrl; struct cgroup_ctrl *ctrl; uint32_t ctrl_field = 0; - int no_prefix = 0; + int no_prefix = 0, memory_recursiveprot = 0; char buf[BUFSIZ]; char *tok; const int mnt_dfd = SAFE_OPEN(mnt_dir, O_PATH | O_DIRECTORY); @@ -376,6 +378,9 @@ static void cgroup_root_scan(const char *const mnt_type, if (!strcmp(mnt_type, "cgroup")) goto v1; + for (tok = strtok(mnt_opts, ","); tok; tok = strtok(NULL, ",")) + memory_recursiveprot |= !strcmp("memory_recursiveprot", tok); + SAFE_FILE_READAT(mnt_dfd, "cgroup.controllers", buf, sizeof(buf)); for (tok = strtok(buf, " "); tok; tok = strtok(NULL, " ")) { @@ -433,6 +438,7 @@ backref: root->mnt_dir.dir_fd = mnt_dfd; root->ctrl_field = ctrl_field; root->no_cpuset_prefix = no_prefix; + root->memory_recursiveprot = memory_recursiveprot; for_each_ctrl(ctrl) { if (has_ctrl(root->ctrl_field, ctrl)) @@ -1212,3 +1218,8 @@ int safe_cg_occursin(const char *const file, const int lineno, return !!strstr(buf, needle); } + +int tst_cg_memory_recursiveprot(void) +{ + return roots[0].memory_recursiveprot; +}
This changes the effect of trunk nodes' memory.low and memory.min on their leaf nodes. So we need to change the expectations of some tests. Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com> Suggested-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> --- include/tst_cgroup.h | 3 +++ lib/tst_cgroup.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)