lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/4] userfaultfd: selftest: Cope if shmem doesn't support zeropage
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:46:33PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 07:00:46PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> >> If userfaultfd runs on a system that doesn't support UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE for
> >> shared memory, it currently ends with error code 1 which indicates test
> >> failure:
> >>
> >> # ./userfaultfd shmem 10 10
> >> nr_pages: 160, nr_pages_per_cpu: 80
> >> bounces: 9, mode: rnd poll, unexpected missing ioctl for anon memory
> >> # echo $?
> >> 1
> >>
> >> Change userfaultfd_zeropage_test() to return KSFT_SKIP to indicate that
> >> the test is being skipped.
> >
> > I took a deeper look at what userfaultfd_zeropage_test() does and,
> > apparently, I've mislead you. The test checks if the range has
> > UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE and verifies that it works if yes; otherwise the test
> > verifies that EINVAL is returned.
> >
> > Can you please check if the patch below works in your environment?
> >
> > From 7a34c84c0461b5073742275638c44b6535d19166 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:44:19 +0300
> > Subject: [PATCH] userfaultfd: selftest: make supported range ioctl
> > verification more robust
> >
> > When userfaultfd tests runs on older kernel that does not support
> > UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE for shared memory it fails at the ioctl verification.
> >
> > Split out the verification that supported ioctls are superset of the
> > expected ioctls and relax the checks for UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE for shared memory
> > areas.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> I'm sorry to take this long to respond, I was only able to get back to
> this today.

No problem :)

> Your patch does solve my problem. Thank you very much!
>
> It has a trivial conflict in the second hunk with patch 3 in my series.
> Should I repost the series with your patch in place of patch 4?

Yep.

> --
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-28 08:15    [W:0.050 / U:30.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site