[LTP] [PATCH 3/3] memcontrol04: Copy from kselftest
Li Wang
liwang@redhat.com
Wed Feb 9 12:05:16 CET 2022
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:04 PM Richard Palethorpe via ltp <
ltp@lists.linux.it> wrote:
> At first glance this test looks the same as memcontrol03. However
> there are some significant changes which complicate combining the two.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
> ---
> runtest/controllers | 1 +
> testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/.gitignore | 1 +
> .../kernel/controllers/memcg/memcontrol04.c | 228 ++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 230 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/memcontrol04.c
>
> diff --git a/runtest/controllers b/runtest/controllers
> index 4a6f919af..3108a2561 100644
> --- a/runtest/controllers
> +++ b/runtest/controllers
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ memcg_control memcg_control_test.sh
> memcontrol01 memcontrol01
> memcontrol02 memcontrol02
> memcontrol03 memcontrol03
> +memcontrol04 memcontrol04
>
> cgroup_fj_function_debug cgroup_fj_function.sh debug
> cgroup_fj_function_cpuset cgroup_fj_function.sh cpuset
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/.gitignore
> b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/.gitignore
> index 49df1582c..3883cede6 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/.gitignore
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/.gitignore
> @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@
> memcontrol01
> memcontrol02
> memcontrol03
> +memcontrol04
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/memcontrol04.c
> b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/memcontrol04.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..cdfeff4a4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/controllers/memcg/memcontrol04.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*\
> + *
> + * [Description]
> + *
> + * Conversion of the forth kself test in cgroup/test_memcontrol.c.
> + *
> + * Original description:
> + * "First, this test creates the following hierarchy:
> + * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M
> + * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = 50M
> + * A/B/C memory.low = 75M, memory.current = 50M
> + * A/B/D memory.low = 25M, memory.current = 50M
> + * A/B/E memory.low = 500M, memory.current = 0
> + * A/B/F memory.low = 0, memory.current = 50M
> + *
> + * Usages are pagecache
> + * Then it creates A/G and creates a significant
> + * memory pressure in it.
> + *
> + * A/B memory.current ~= 50M
> + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 33M
> + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M
> + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0
> + *
> + * After that it tries to allocate more than there is unprotected
> + * memory in A available, and checks that memory.low protects
> + * pagecache even in this case."
> + *
> + * The closest thing to memory.low on V1 is soft_limit_in_bytes which
> + * uses a different mechanism and has different semantics. So we only
> + * test on V2 like the selftest. We do test on more file systems, but
> + * not tempfs becaue it can't evict the page cache without swap. Also
> + * we avoid filesystems which allocate extra memory for buffer heads.
> + *
> + * The tolerances have been increased from the self tests.
> + */
> +
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +
> +#include <inttypes.h>
> +
> +#include "memcontrol_common.h"
> +
> +#define TMPDIR "mntdir"
> +
> +static struct tst_cg_group *trunk_cg[3];
> +static struct tst_cg_group *leaf_cg[4];
> +static int fd = -1;
> +
> +enum checkpoints {
> + CHILD_IDLE
> +};
> +
> +enum trunk_cg {
> + A,
> + B,
> + G
> +};
> +
> +enum leaf_cg {
> + C,
> + D,
> + E,
> + F
> +};
> +
> +static void cleanup_sub_groups(void)
> +{
> + size_t i;
> +
> + for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(leaf_cg); i > 0; i--) {
> + if (!leaf_cg[i - 1])
> + continue;
> +
> + leaf_cg[i - 1] = tst_cg_group_rm(leaf_cg[i - 1]);
> + }
> +
> + for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(trunk_cg); i > 0; i--) {
> + if (!trunk_cg[i - 1])
> + continue;
> +
> + trunk_cg[i - 1] = tst_cg_group_rm(trunk_cg[i - 1]);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void alloc_anon_in_child(const struct tst_cg_group *const cg,
> + const size_t size)
> +{
> + const pid_t pid = SAFE_FORK();
> +
> + if (pid) {
> + tst_reap_children();
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_CG_PRINTF(cg, "cgroup.procs", "%d", getpid());
> +
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Child %d in %s: Allocating anon: %"PRIdPTR,
> + getpid(), tst_cg_group_name(cg), size);
> + alloc_anon(size);
> +
> + exit(0);
> +}
> +
> +static void alloc_pagecache_in_child(const struct tst_cg_group *const cg,
> + const size_t size)
> +{
> + const pid_t pid = SAFE_FORK();
> +
> + if (pid) {
> + tst_reap_children();
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_CG_PRINTF(cg, "cgroup.procs", "%d", getpid());
> +
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Child %d in %s: Allocating pagecache: %"PRIdPTR,
> + getpid(), tst_cg_group_name(cg), size);
> + alloc_pagecache(fd, size);
> +
> + exit(0);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_memcg_min(void)
>
test_memcg_low() ^
> +{
> + long c[4];
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + fd = SAFE_OPEN(TMPDIR"/tmpfile", O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0600);
> + trunk_cg[A] = tst_cg_group_mk(tst_cg, "trunk_A");
> +
> + SAFE_CG_SCANF(trunk_cg[A], "memory.low", "%ld", c);
> + if (c[0]) {
> + tst_brk(TCONF,
> + "memory.low already set to %ld on parent group",
> c[0]);
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(trunk_cg[A], "cgroup.subtree_control", "+memory");
> +
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(trunk_cg[A], "memory.max", "200M");
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(trunk_cg[A], "memory.swap.max", "0");
> +
> + trunk_cg[B] = tst_cg_group_mk(trunk_cg[A], "trunk_B");
> +
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(trunk_cg[B], "cgroup.subtree_control", "+memory");
> +
> + trunk_cg[G] = tst_cg_group_mk(trunk_cg[A], "trunk_G");
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(leaf_cg); i++) {
> + leaf_cg[i] = tst_cg_group_mk(trunk_cg[B],
> + "leaf_%c", 'C' + i);
> +
> + if (i == E)
> + continue;
> +
> + alloc_pagecache_in_child(leaf_cg[i], MB(50));
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(trunk_cg[A], "memory.low", "50M");
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(trunk_cg[B], "memory.low", "50M");
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(leaf_cg[C], "memory.low", "75M");
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(leaf_cg[D], "memory.low", "25M");
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(leaf_cg[E], "memory.low", "500M");
> + SAFE_CG_PRINT(leaf_cg[F], "memory.low", "0");
> +
> + alloc_anon_in_child(trunk_cg[G], MB(148));
> +
> + SAFE_CG_SCANF(trunk_cg[B], "memory.current", "%ld", c);
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(values_close(c[0], MB(50), 5),
> + "(A/B memory.current=%ld) ~= %d", c[0], MB(50));
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(leaf_cg); i++)
> + SAFE_CG_SCANF(leaf_cg[i], "memory.current", "%ld", c + i);
> +
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(values_close(c[0], MB(33), 20),
> + "(A/B/C memory.current=%ld) ~= %d", c[0], MB(33));
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(values_close(c[1], MB(17), 20),
> + "(A/B/D memory.current=%ld) ~= %d", c[1], MB(17));
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(values_close(c[2], 0, 1),
> + "(A/B/E memory.current=%ld) ~= 0", c[2]);
> +
> + alloc_anon_in_child(trunk_cg[G], MB(166));
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(leaf_cg); i++) {
> + long low, oom;
> +
> + SAFE_CG_LINES_SCANF(leaf_cg[i], "memory.events",
> + "low %ld", &low);
> + SAFE_CG_LINES_SCANF(leaf_cg[i], "memory.events",
> + "oom %ld", &oom);
> +
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(oom == 0, "(oom events=%ld) == 0", oom);
> +
> + if (i < E)
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(low > 0, "(low events=%ld) > 0", low)
> + else
> + TST_EXP_EXPR(low == 0, "(low events=%ld) == 0",
> low);
> + }
> +
> + cleanup_sub_groups();
> + SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> + SAFE_UNLINK(TMPDIR"/tmpfile");
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> + cleanup_sub_groups();
> + if (fd > -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> + .cleanup = cleanup,
> + .test_all = test_memcg_min,
>
test_memcg_low ^
> + .mount_device = 1,
> + .dev_min_size = 256,
> + .mntpoint = TMPDIR,
> + .all_filesystems = 1,
> + .skip_filesystems = (const char *const[]){
> + "exfat", "vfat", "fuse", "ntfs", "tmpfs", NULL
> + },
> + .forks_child = 1,
> + .needs_root = 1,
> + .needs_checkpoints = 1,
> + .needs_cgroup_ver = TST_CG_V2,
> + .needs_cgroup_ctrls = (const char *const[]){ "memory", NULL },
> +};
>
Apart from the tiny issues and controversy on renaming in patch2/3.
The test itself looks good if we decide to go separate with memcontrol03.c
Btw, there are some TFAILs from my manual run.
(I will look into that try to figure it out tomorrow)
tst_test.c:1521: TINFO: Testing on ext4
tst_test.c:996: TINFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext4 opts='' extra opts=''
mke2fs 1.46.5 (30-Dec-2021)
tst_test.c:1452: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
memcontrol04.c:118: TINFO: Child 242775 in leaf_C: Allocating pagecache:
52428800
memcontrol04.c:118: TINFO: Child 242776 in leaf_D: Allocating pagecache:
52428800
memcontrol04.c:118: TINFO: Child 242777 in leaf_F: Allocating pagecache:
52428800
memcontrol04.c:99: TINFO: Child 242778 in trunk_G: Allocating anon:
155189248
memcontrol04.c:170: TPASS: Expect: (A/B memory.current=54181888) ~= 52428800
memcontrol04.c:176: TPASS: Expect: (A/B/C memory.current=30957568) ~=
34603008
memcontrol04.c:178: TPASS: Expect: (A/B/D memory.current=22282240) ~=
17825792
memcontrol04.c:180: TPASS: Expect: (A/B/E memory.current=0) ~= 0
memcontrol04.c:99: TINFO: Child 242779 in trunk_G: Allocating anon:
174063616
memcontrol04.c:193: TPASS: Expect: (oom events=0) == 0
memcontrol04.c:196: TPASS: Expect: (low events=373) > 0
memcontrol04.c:193: TPASS: Expect: (oom events=0) == 0
memcontrol04.c:196: TPASS: Expect: (low events=373) > 0
memcontrol04.c:193: TPASS: Expect: (oom events=0) == 0
memcontrol04.c:198: TPASS: Expect: (low events=0) == 0
memcontrol04.c:193: TPASS: Expect: (oom events=0) == 0
memcontrol04.c:198: TFAIL: Expect: (low events=370) == 0
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20220209/bac91359/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the ltp
mailing list