[LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] numa: fix numa test error with non-continuous nodes

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi!
>> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/numa/numa01.sh
>> > b/testcases/kernel/numa/numa01.sh
>> > index 33393ac8d..47c18edd6 100755
>> > --- a/testcases/kernel/numa/numa01.sh
>> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/numa/numa01.sh
>> > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ setup()
>> >  test1()
>> >  {
>> >         Mem_curr=0
>> > +       node_index=0
>> >
>> >         for node in $nodes_list; do
>> >                 numactl --cpunodebind=$node --membind=$node support_numa
>> > alloc_1MB &
>> > @@ -101,7 +102,8 @@ test1()
>> >
>> >                 TST_RETRY_FUNC "check_for_support_numa $pid" 0
>> >
>> > -               Mem_curr=$(echo "$(extract_numastat_p $pid $node) * $MB"
>> > |bc)
>> > +               Mem_curr=$(echo "$(extract_numastat_p $pid $node_index) *
>> > $MB" |bc)
>> > +               let node_index++
>> >
>> 
>> I guess it can be work, but the disadvantage of that is we have to involve
>> a new variable(node_index) in each of the tests (from test1 to test10).
>> Hence I don't think it is much better than my patch. For which way to go,
>> I'd leave this to Cyril to make a choice. Or, maybe he has different
>> thoughts on this:).
>
> I actually do not care that much about the numa01.sh tests, because
> these are broken in more ways than this and were never correct to begin
> with.
>
> I've started to rewrite these into proper tests, the set_mempolicy() was
> first part of that effort, the mbind() tests are continuation of that
> and the end goal is to get rid of these broken tests eventually.

We have quite a few mbind and set_mempolicy tests now. So should we
delete this test?

>
> -- 
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.