On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 12:25 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:58AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 11:44 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:34:54PM +0000, Adam Litke wrote: > > > > It is now possible for 32 and 64 bit applications to require different > > > > mount > > > > points. For example: powerpc 16G pages can only be used by 64 bit > > > > apps. To > > > > handle this case, check for mount points in both a 32 and 64 bit > > > > context. Only > > > > run tests for a word size with a valid mount point. > > > > > > > > When cleaning up elflink share files, remove files from all detected > > > > mount > > > > points. > > > > > > I think you're thinking about this the wrong way around. To test > > > thoroughly, we want to test as many page sizes as are available. So > > > rather than attempting to find a single pagesize/mountpoint for each > > > wordsize, we should instead attempt to run through the whole testsuite > > > for each pagesize. Then it's just a matter of not running the 32-bit > > > tests when we're doing a run on pagesize that's too big. > > > > While I agree with you that we should end up testing all of the > > available page sizes (and possibly even mixing them within tests) I > > think that is a separate patch series. This patch is specifically (and > > simply) about recognizing that the list of valid mount points may differ > > between 32 and 64 bit applications. > > Hrm. I guess. > > > It would be relatively easy to test different page sizes through the use > > of the HUGETLB_PATH environment variable in run_tests.sh to manipulate > > the available hugetlbfs mount points available to test cases. This is > > how I have been testing things on my own box. Producing a patch for > > this is near the top of my list. > > Wouldn't it be simpler for the hugeutls code simply to reject any > mounts (either from HUGETLB_PATH or the mounts file) that have a > pagesize we can't use? Then we don't need to fiddle with which is > which from the run_tests.sh script. Well, except for quota, which is > weird because it makes its own mount.
The code already does this. See hugetlbfs_test_pagesize(). The overflow checking in that function should eliminate the mount from consideration if its size cannot be properly represented in a native LONG. The purpose of the run_tests.sh logic is to simply not run tests for a word size that will not have a valid mount point to use (because, for example, the only mounted size was eliminated by the check I describe above). -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
