----- Original Message -----
> From: "Caspar Zhang" <[email protected]>
> To: "Zhouping Liu" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "LTP List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:09:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/5] mm/oom02: modified 'OOM for NUMA' as 'OOM for
> mempolicy'
>
> 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.
I'm not sure which variable you mean, pid and status variable? but they are
needed.
>
> > {
> > 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.
The following words from the manual page can tell us the child inherit the
father's mempolicy:
SET_MEMPOLICY(2)
...
The process memory policy is preserved across an execve(2), and is inherited by
child processes created using fork(2) or clone(2).
...
--
Thanks,
Zhouping
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
