I also like the tests being red if it's not available, like you said it
indicates that they shouldn't use cgroups.

However, we should really have a way to _prevent_ them from using cgroups
if it's not available, have we thought about this yet?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Jie Yu <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's the reason. Try to install a newer version of ubuntu (e.g. ubuntu
> 11.10, 12.04) so that you can test the oom_control functionality.
>
> Probably we should disable these tests if oom_control is not available.
> But seems that gtest does not provide a clean way to do this (dynamically
> disable a test).
>
> We can add another PREFIX to those test cases (like ROOT_CGROUP), but that
> seems to be tedious.
>
> Also, the break of these tests indicates a good thing: we do require
> oom_control capability in cgroups isolation module. If they cannot pass the
> unit test, they should not use the cgroups module.
>
> - Jie
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> $ uname -a
>> Linux ubuntu 2.6.32-38-generic #83-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jan 4 11:12:07 UTC 2012
>> x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jie Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Sept. 28, 2012, 7:16 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
>>> > > I've patched this in and I'm seeing a a failing test:
>>> > >
>>> > > [ RUN      ] CgroupsTest.ROOT_CGROUPS_ListenEvent
>>> > > ../../src/tests/cgroups_tests.cpp:365: Failure
>>> > > Value of: cgroups::writeControl(hierarchy, "/prof",
>>> "memory.oom_control", "1").isSome()
>>> > >   Actual: false
>>> > > Expected: true
>>> > > [  FAILED  ] CgroupsTest.ROOT_CGROUPS_ListenEvent (290 ms)
>>>
>>> What's your kernel version? Please do a 'uname -a'.
>>>
>>> We saw this before, the reason is you are using an old kernel which does
>>> not have oom_control capability.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Jie
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/#review12031
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sept. 28, 2012, 5:33 a.m., Jie Yu wrote:
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/
>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > (Updated Sept. 28, 2012, 5:33 a.m.)
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Description
>>> > -------
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The recent refactor changes break the assumptions in the cgroups code.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Diffs
>>> > -----
>>> >
>>> >   src/linux/cgroups.cpp cdafe6e
>>> >   third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp 13dbc71
>>> >
>>> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/diff/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Testing
>>> > -------
>>> >
>>> > make check.
>>> >
>>> > Tested on my vm (latest ubuntu 12.04)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Jie Yu
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to