Re: [PATCH linux-next] selftests/vm: calculate variables in correct order

[Joel Savitz]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:09 PM Joel Savitz <jsavitz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 8:31 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:26:40 -0400 Joel Savitz <jsavitz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > commit b5ba705c2608 ("selftests/vm: enable running select groups of tests")
>> > unintentionally reversed the ordering of some of the lines of
>> > run_vmtests.sh that calculate values based on system configuration.
>> > Importantly, $hpgsize_MB is determined from $hpgsize_KB, but this later
>> > value is not read from /proc/meminfo until later, causing userfaultfd
>> > tests to incorrectly fail since $half_ufd_size_MB will always be 0.
>> >
>> > Switch these statements around into proper order to fix the invocation
>> > of the userfaultfd tests that use $half_ufd_size_MB.
>>
>> Does this fix address the failure in
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/202211021026.61b267d1-yujie.liu@xxxxxxxxx?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> I have tried to reproduce this failure on a couple of different systems before and after the application of this commit but I haven't had any success in doing so. I suspect that there was some sort of hugepage configuration issue on the test system but I'd have to look into it more to be sure.
>
> However, I noticed that on the mm-everything branch, the hugepage-mmap test fails:
>
> # ./run_vmtests.sh -t "hugetlb"
> running: ./hugepage-mmap
> -----------------------
> running ./hugepage-mmap
> -----------------------
> Open failed: No such file or directory
> [FAIL]
> ...
>
> It appears this is due to commit 0796c7b8be84 ("selftests/vm: drop mnt point for hugetlb in run_vmtests.sh")
> as the test still replies on the ./huge mountpoint removed in that commit. The test passes before that patchset is applied.
>
> Additionally, I just noticed an extraneous 'echo "running: $1"' line in run_test(), the effects of which are seen above, and I have just sent a patch to remove it.
>
> Joel

Resending this reply since it appears a bit of HTML slipped into the
last reply and it got rejected by the lists.