On 05/05/2014 05:06 PM, Diwakar Sharma (RBEI/ECF3) wrote: > Hello, > > I am using 3.8.13.21 > > oracle-virtualbox:/usr/lib# uname -r > 3.8.13.21
Hmm, max_map_count passes with vanilla kernel 3.8.13 and the current LTP git version: [root@ol6-i386 tunable]# uname -a Linux ol6-i386 3.8.13 #1 SMP Tue May 6 02:47:45 EDT 2014 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [root@ol6-i386 tunable]# cat /proc/self/maps 08048000-08053000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 135174 /bin/cat 08053000-08054000 rw-p 0000a000 fd:00 135174 /bin/cat 0962e000-0964f000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap] b737d000-b757d000 r--p 00000000 fd:00 134061 /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive b757d000-b757e000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 b757e000-b770f000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 2069 /lib/libc-2.12.so b770f000-b7711000 r--p 00191000 fd:00 2069 /lib/libc-2.12.so b7711000-b7712000 rw-p 00193000 fd:00 2069 /lib/libc-2.12.so b7712000-b7715000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 b771a000-b771b000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 b771b000-b771c000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso] b771c000-b773a000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 2062 /lib/ld-2.12.so b773a000-b773b000 r--p 0001d000 fd:00 2062 /lib/ld-2.12.so b773b000-b773c000 rw-p 0001e000 fd:00 2062 /lib/ld-2.12.so bf8b7000-bf8d8000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack] [root@ol6-i386 tunable]# ./max_map_count max_map_count 0 TINFO : set overcommit_memory to 2 max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 64 max_map_count 1 TPASS : 64 map entries in total as expected. max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 256 max_map_count 2 TPASS : 256 map entries in total as expected. max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 1024 max_map_count 3 TPASS : 1024 map entries in total as expected. max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 4096 max_map_count 4 TPASS : 4096 map entries in total as expected. max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 16384 max_map_count 5 TPASS : 16384 map entries in total as expected. max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 65536 max_map_count 6 TPASS : 65536 map entries in total as expected. max_map_count 0 TINFO : set overcommit_memory to 0 max_map_count 0 TINFO : set max_map_count to 65530 It's a virtual machine in VirtualBox-4.3-4.3.10_93012_el6-1.x86_64 > > Thanks and Regards > Diwakar Sharma > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stanislav Kholmanskikh [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 6:32 PM > To: Diwakar Sharma (RBEI/ECF3); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LTP] - Kernel - tunable max_map_count test failure - > 20140115-46-g2368cd4 > > > > On 05/05/2014 10:52 AM, Diwakar Sharma (RBEI/ECF3) wrote: >> Hi, > > Hi! > >> >> I was getting the max_map_count test failed. It looked to me failing at >> filter_map function. The platform I'm working on is an i686 architecture >> running on Virtualbox. >> I added below additional macro condition and it's passing now. I want to >> understand if not including i686/386 was intentional originally for some >> reason? Also vdso part I added additionaly. >> >> #elif defined(__i686__) || defined(__i386__) >> static int filter_map(char *line) >> { >> char buf[BUFSIZ]; >> int ret; >> >> ret = sscanf(line, "%*p-%*p %*4s %*p %*2d:%*2d %*d %s", buf); >> if (ret != 1) >> return 0; >> >> return ((strcmp(buf, "[vdso]") == 0) | (strcmp(buf, "[vsyscall]") >> == 0)); >> } >> >> >> On another similar architecture (but the actual h/w board), the same code >> gives messages like "4096 map entries in total, but expected 4096 entries" >> and reported FAIL, implying map_count and max_maps is same ( Contrary to >> map_count==max_maps+1 ). How do we analyze this scenario? Does this mean it >> is not exceeding by one for sysctl setting? How to verify that. >> > > Which kernel version do you use? I want to check this test case in my > environment. > > Thanks. > > PS: Also look at this thread > http://sourceforge.net/p/ltp/mailman/ltp-list/thread/52009D26.4030609%40oracle.com/ > >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Diwakar Sharma >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: >> • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity >> • Requirements for releasing software faster >> • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce >> _______________________________________________ >> Ltp-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
