On 03/15/2013 12:21 AM, Zhouping Liu wrote:
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c b/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c
> index 29de64a..a71bc90 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c
> @@ -64,32 +64,17 @@ void oom(int testcase, int mempolicy, int lite)
you've moved all mempolicy check stuff to testoom(), so you can
completely remove this variable.
> {
> pid_t pid;
> int status;
> -#if HAVE_NUMA_H && HAVE_LINUX_MEMPOLICY_H && HAVE_NUMAIF_H \
> - && HAVE_MPOL_CONSTANTS
> - unsigned long nmask = 0;
> - unsigned int node;
> -
> - if (mempolicy)
> - node = get_a_numa_node(cleanup);
> - nmask += 1 << node;
> -#endif
>
> switch (pid = fork()) {
> case -1:
> tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "fork");
> case 0:
> -#if HAVE_NUMA_H && HAVE_LINUX_MEMPOLICY_H && HAVE_NUMAIF_H \
> - && HAVE_MPOL_CONSTANTS
> - if (mempolicy)
> - if (set_mempolicy(MPOL_BIND, &nmask, MAXNODES) == -1)
> - tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup,
> - "set_mempolicy");
> -#endif
> _test_alloc(testcase, lite);
> exit(0);
> default:
> break;
> }
> +
> tst_resm(TINFO, "expected victim is %d.", pid);
> if (waitpid(-1, &status, 0) == -1)
> tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "waitpid");
> @@ -107,7 +92,44 @@ void oom(int testcase, int mempolicy, int lite)
>
> void testoom(int mempolicy, int lite, int numa)
> {
> - long nodes[MAXNODES];
> +#if HAVE_NUMA_H && HAVE_LINUX_MEMPOLICY_H && HAVE_NUMAIF_H \
> + && HAVE_MPOL_CONSTANTS
> + unsigned long nmask = 0;
> + unsigned int num_nodes, nodes[MAXNODES];
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (mempolicy) {
> + ret = get_allowed_nodes_arr(NH_MEMS|NH_CPUS, &num_nodes,
> &nodes);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup,
> + "get_allowed_nodes_arr");
> + if (num_nodes < 2) {
> + tst_resm(TINFO, "mempolicy need NUMA system support");
> + return;
> + }
> + switch(mempolicy) {
> + case MPOL_BIND:
> + /* bind the second node */
> + nmask = 1 << nodes[1];
> + break;
> + case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> + case MPOL_PREFERRED:
> + if (num_nodes == 2) {
> + tst_resm(TINFO, "The mempolicy need "
> + "more than 2 numa nodes");
> + return;
> + } else {
> + /* Using the 2nd,3rd node */
> + nmask = (1 << nodes[1]) | (1 << nodes[2]);
> + }
> + break;
> + default:
> + tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "Bad mempolicy mode");
> + }
> + if (set_mempolicy(mempolicy, &nmask, MAXNODES) == -1)
> + tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "set_mempolicy");
> + }
> +#endif
>
> if (numa && !mempolicy)
> write_cpusets(get_a_numa_node(cleanup));
>
The remaining concern to me is that, mempolicy set in parent process,
can it be inherited by child? I see this patch changed the behavior that
in new test, set_mempolicy happen in parent and oom happen in child.
Caspar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
