[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 04:04:15PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:

Thanks for the reviews on this patchset, Roman. FYI I think Andrew already
merged these patches to the -mm tree. I'll send out a follow-on patch that
fixes everything you pointed out, both here and on the other patches in the

> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 08:57:25AM -0700, David Vernet wrote:
> > In test_memcg_min() and test_memcg_low(), there is an array of four sibling
> > cgroups. All but one of these sibling groups does a 50MB allocation, and
> > the group that does no allocation is the third of four in the array. This
> > is not a problem per se, but makes it a bit tricky to do some assertions in
> > test_memcg_low(), as we want to make assertions on the siblings based on
> > whether or not they performed allocations. Having a static index before
> > which all groups have performed an allocation makes this cleaner.
> >
> > This patch therefore reorders the sibling groups so that the group that
> > performs no allocations is the last in the array.
> It makes the comment explaining the test just above the test_memcg_min()
> function obsolete. Please, fix it too.

Thanks for catching that. I'll fix the comment both in test_memcg_min() and
test_memcg_low() when I send out that follow-on patch.

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-23 13:31    [W:0.049 / U:5.880 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site