[LTP] [PATCH] swapping: replace mem_free by mem_available

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Li Wang" <liwang@redhat.com>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Monday, 1 August, 2016 8:43:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] swapping: replace mem_free by mem_available
> 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:28:26AM -0400, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > @@ -108,17 +108,17 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >  static void init_meminfo(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	swap_free_init = read_meminfo("SwapFree:");
> > > -	mem_free_init = read_meminfo("MemFree:");
> > > -	mem_over = mem_free_init * COE_SLIGHT_OVER;
> > > -	mem_over_max = mem_free_init * COE_DELTA;
> > > -
> > > -	/* at least 10MB free physical memory needed */
> > > -	if (mem_free_init < 10240) {
> > > -		sleep(5);
> > > -		if (mem_free_init < 10240)
> > > +	if (!FILE_LINES_SCANF(cleanup, "/proc/meminfo", "MemAvailable: %ld",
> > > +				&mem_available_init))
> > > +		mem_available_init = read_meminfo("MemFree:") +
> > > read_meminfo("Cached:");
> > > +	mem_over = mem_available_init * COE_SLIGHT_OVER;
> > > +	mem_over_max = mem_available_init * COE_DELTA;
> > > +
> > > +	/* at least 10MB available physical memory needed */
> > > +	if (mem_available_init < 10240)
> > >  			tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup,
> > > -				 "Not enough free memory to test.");
> > > -	}
> > > +				 "Not enough avalable memory to test.");
> > > +
> > >  	if (swap_free_init < mem_over)
> > >  		tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "Not enough swap space to test.");
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > check_swapping() compares swap increase to mem_over_max. Is bad kernel
> > really using that much swap? If so, then condition above looks
> > wrong, since it doesn't check that we can fit so much into swap.
> 
> Good catch! If the total swap size is smaller than mem_over_max, there
> seems no need to run this case, because theoretically it'll always get
> PASS on bad kernel.
> 
> I'd like to add additional check:
> 
> 	if (swap_total < mem_over_max)
> 		tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "swap size is not fit to test");

I'd modify the existing one.

> 
> > 
> > >  }
> > > @@ -128,8 +128,8 @@ static void do_alloc(void)
> > >  	long mem_count;
> > >  	void *s;
> > >  
> > > -	tst_resm(TINFO, "free physical memory: %ld MB", mem_free_init / 1024);
> > > -	mem_count = mem_free_init + mem_over;
> > > +	tst_resm(TINFO, "available physical memory: %ld MB", mem_available_init
> > > /
> > > 1024);
> > > +	mem_count = mem_available_init + mem_over;
> > >  	tst_resm(TINFO, "try to allocate: %ld MB", mem_count / 1024);
> > >  	s = malloc(mem_count * 1024);
> > >  	if (s == NULL)
> > > @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static void check_swapping(void)
> > >  			tst_brkm(TFAIL, cleanup, "heavy swapping detected: "
> > >  				 "%ld MB swapped.", swapped / 1024);
> > >  		}
> > > -		sleep(1);
> > > +		usleep(100000);
> > 
> > The original code appears to check multiple times to be sure that
> > writes to swap have settled. Did you test if shortened delay can still
> > detect bug on bad kernel?
> 
> I didn't test it with bad kernel. But your worries are necessary, the swap
> checker probably spend a long time on big RAM box.
> 
> > 
> > I was thinking we break the loop if we see no change in swap usage
> > for certain period:
> 
> Agreed, this method looks more stable. Just have a little query of that.
> 
> > 
> > i = 0;
> > while (i < X) {
> 
> How much should the X defined?

I'd say at least 10 as with original testcase.

> 
> >   i++;
> >   swapped = read_meminfo("SwapFree:");
> >   sleep(1);
> >   if (abs(swapped - read_meminfo("SwapFree:")) < 512)
> 
> Why set the limitation as 512?  why not 1024 or others?

I picked that by rule of thumb, the value should be smaller
than what any system can write to swap within 1s. But if we
go too low then some noise from background processes could be
falsely recognized as swap usage.

Regards,
Jan

> 
> >     break;
> > }
> > 
> > if (swapped > mem_over_max) {
> >   FAIL
> > }
> 
> Regards,
> Li Wang
>