[LTP] [RFC PATCH] madvise06: shrink to 1 MADV_WILLNEED page to stabilize the test

[Li Wang]

Hi Richard,

Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de> wrote:


> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise06.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise06.c
> > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static int get_page_fault_num(void)
> >
> >  static void test_advice_willneed(void)
> >  {
> > -     int loops = 50, res;
> > +     int loops = 100, res;
> >       char *target;
> >       long swapcached_start, swapcached;
> >       int page_fault_num_1, page_fault_num_2;
> > @@ -202,23 +202,32 @@ static void test_advice_willneed(void)
> >               "%s than %ld Kb were moved to the swap cache",
> >               res ? "more" : "less", PASS_THRESHOLD_KB);
> >
> > -
> > -     TEST(madvise(target, PASS_THRESHOLD, MADV_WILLNEED));
> > +     loops = 100;
> > +     SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF("/proc/meminfo", "SwapCached: %ld",
> &swapcached_start);
> > +     TEST(madvise(target, pg_sz, MADV_WILLNEED));
> >       if (TST_RET == -1)
> >               tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO, "madvise failed");
> > +     do {
> > +             loops--;
> > +             usleep(100000);
> > +             if (stat_refresh_sup)
> > +                     SAFE_FILE_PRINTF("/proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh", "1");
> > +             SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF("/proc/meminfo", "SwapCached: %ld",
> > +                             &swapcached);
> > +     } while (swapcached < swapcached_start + pg_sz/1024 && loops > 0);
> >
> >       page_fault_num_1 = get_page_fault_num();
> >       tst_res(TINFO, "PageFault(madvice / no mem access): %d",
> >                       page_fault_num_1);
> > -     dirty_pages(target, PASS_THRESHOLD);
> > +     dirty_pages(target, pg_sz);
>
> Adding the loop makes sense to me. However I don't understand why you
> have also switched from PASS_THRESHOLD to only a single page?
>

In the test, we use two checks combined to confirm the bug reproduces:

  1. swap cached increasing less than PASS_THRESHOLD_KB
  2. page_fault number large than expected

The 2. case is more easily get failed on kind of platforms and hard
to count an average value for tolerating. So maybe we just reduce
the page to one that would not affect the final result. Because we
rely on both checks happening simultaneously then assume a bug.



>
> I guess calling MADV_WILLNEED on a single page is the least realistic
> scenario.
>

Okay, perhaps it's a step backward:).

I was just thinking it is a regression test and if 1 page works to reproduce
that (but more chunks of memory easily cause false positive), why not.



>
> If there is an issue with PASS_THRESHOLD perhaps we could scale it based
> on page size?
>

This sounds acceptable too.

How many pages do you think are proper, 100 or more?
and, loosen the faulted-out numbers to 1/10 pages?


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20220617/89d2bb1a/attachment.htm>