[LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/madvise09.c: Use custom mount point instead of /sys/fs/cgroup/memory
Xiao Yang
yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com
Tue Jan 16 10:11:31 CET 2018
On 2018/01/15 23:58, Jan Stancek wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 2018/01/15 16:06, Jan Stancek wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>
>>>> Could you help me review this patch.
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it would be better to use existing mount, if it's already mounted.
>>> umount may fail with -EBUSY if the subsystem is already part of existing
>>> hierarchy.
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> 1) I want to run madvise09 on as many distros supporting memcg as possible.
>>
>> 2) The custom mount point is just created and mounted for running
>> madvise09, and will be
>> released after finishing madvise09, so i think it doesn't affect
>> existing hierarchy.
> Here's example:
>
> This is state of the system prior to madvise09:
> # mkdir -p /tmp/1; mount -t cgroup -o memory,hugetlb none /tmp/1; echo $?
> 0
>
> And now you run madvise09, that tries to mount "memory" cgroup, which is going to fail:
> # mkdir -p /tmp/2; mount -t cgroup -o memory none /tmp/2; echo $?
> mount: none is already mounted or /tmp/2 busy
> none is already mounted on /tmp/1
> 32
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
According to documented behavior of cgroups [1], it seems that only a new cgroup
hierarchy with the same options of the existing hierarchy can be mounted sucessfully,
and mount with different options will fail and return EBUSY as expected.
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/cgroup-v1/cgroups.txt
Combinations of sucess:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) # mkdir -p /tmp/1; mount -t cgroup -o memory,hugetlb none /tmp/1; echo $?
0
# mkdir -p /tmp/2; mount -t cgroup -o memory,hugetlb none /tmp/2; echo $?
0
2) # mkdir -p /tmp/1; mount -t cgroup -o memory none /tmp/1; echo $?
0
# mkdir -p /tmp/2; mount -t cgroup -o memory none /tmp/2; echo $?
0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combinations of failure:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) # mkdir -p /tmp/1; mount -t cgroup -o memory,hugetlb none /tmp/1; echo $?
0
# mkdir -p /tmp/2; mount -t cgroup -o memory none /tmp/2; echo $?
mount: none is already mounted or /tmp/2 busy
none is already mounted on /tmp/1
32
4) # mkdir -p /tmp/1; mount -t cgroup -o memory none /tmp/1; echo $?
0
# mkdir -p /tmp/2; mount -t cgroup -o memory,hugetlb none /tmp/2; echo $?
mount: none is already mounted or /tmp/2 busy
none is already mounted on /tmp/1
32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure how to fix all errors.
>> Additionally,
>> i use custom mount point according to some tests(oom03, oom05,
>> cpuset01, etc.) on LTP.
> OK, so my example, though possible is likely not very common.
>
> We are close to next LTP release, can this wait or is this a regression
> that should be addressed before release? (Adding Cyril to CC)
I think we can hold it until LTP is released.
Thanks,
Xiao Yang.
> Regards,
> Jan
>
>> Thanks,
>> Xiao Yang
>>> Regards,
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Xiao Yang
>>>> On 2018/01/04 10:43, xiao yang wrote:
>>>>> 1) on some distros(e.g. RHEL6), memory cgroup was supported and
>>>>> mounted on /cgroup/memory by default, but the test was skipped
>>>>> if /sys/fs/cgroup/memory did not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) We got the following error if memory cgroup wasn't mounted
>>>>> on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory:
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> safe_macros.c:169: BROK: madvise09.c:175:
>>>>> mkdir(/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ltp_madvise09_16386/,0777) failed: EROFS
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> We use custom mount point and mount memory cgroup on it manually
>>>>> to fix these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: xiao yang<yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise09.c | 26
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise09.c
>>>>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise09.c
>>>>> index f744405..25cf81f 100644
>>>>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise09.c
>>>>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise09.c
>>>>> @@ -53,12 +53,14 @@
>>>>> #include<errno.h>
>>>>> #include<stdio.h>
>>>>> #include<ctype.h>
>>>>> +#include<sys/mount.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "tst_test.h"
>>>>> #include "lapi/mmap.h"
>>>>>
>>>>> -#define MEMCG_PATH "/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/"
>>>>> +#define MEMCG_PATH "/dev/memcg_madvise09/"
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int memcg_mounted;
>>>>> static char cgroup_path[PATH_MAX];
>>>>> static char tasks_path[PATH_MAX];
>>>>> static char limit_in_bytes_path[PATH_MAX];
>>>>> @@ -277,6 +279,15 @@ static void cleanup(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (cgroup_path[0]&& !access(cgroup_path, F_OK))
>>>>> rmdir(cgroup_path);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (memcg_mounted) {
>>>>> + tst_res(TINFO, "Umount memory cgroup after testing");
>>>>> + SAFE_UMOUNT(MEMCG_PATH);
>>>>> + memcg_mounted = 0;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!access(MEMCG_PATH, F_OK)&& rmdir(MEMCG_PATH))
>>>>> + tst_res(TWARN | TERRNO, "Rmdir %s failed", MEMCG_PATH);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static void run(void)
>>>>> @@ -316,10 +327,17 @@ static void setup(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> long int swap_total;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (access(MEMCG_PATH, F_OK)) {
>>>>> - tst_brk(TCONF, "'" MEMCG_PATH
>>>>> - "' not present, CONFIG_MEMCG missing?");
>>>>> + SAFE_MKDIR(MEMCG_PATH, 0777);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + tst_res(TINFO, "Mount memory cgroup on %s", MEMCG_PATH);
>>>>> + if (mount("memcg", MEMCG_PATH, "cgroup", 0, "memory") == -1) {
>>>>> + if (errno == ENODEV) {
>>>>> + tst_brk(TCONF,
>>>>> + "Memory cgroup was not configured in kernel");
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "Failed to mount memory cgroup");
>>>>> }
>>>>> + memcg_mounted = 1;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!access(MEMCG_PATH "memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes", F_OK))
>>>>> swap_accounting_enabled = 1;
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> .
>
More information about the ltp
mailing list