bybrooklyn/linux
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git synced 2026-04-18 14:53:58 -04:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

selftests: memcg: increase error tolerance of child memory.current check in test_memcg_protection()

Browse Source 
The test_memcg_protection() function is used for the test_memcg_min and
test_memcg_low sub-tests.  This function generates a set of parent/child
cgroups like:

  parent:  memory.min/low = 50M
  child 0: memory.min/low = 75M,  memory.current = 50M
  child 1: memory.min/low = 25M,  memory.current = 50M
  child 2: memory.min/low = 0,    memory.current = 50M

After applying memory pressure, the function expects the following actual
memory usages.

  parent:  memory.current ~= 50M
  child 0: memory.current ~= 29M
  child 1: memory.current ~= 21M
  child 2: memory.current ~= 0

In reality, the actual memory usages can differ quite a bit from the
expected values.  It uses an error tolerance of 10% with the
values_close() helper.

Both the test_memcg_min and test_memcg_low sub-tests can fail sporadically
because the actual memory usage exceeds the 10% error tolerance.  Below
are a sample of the usage data of the tests runs that fail.

  Child   Actual usage    Expected usage    %err
  -----   ------------    --------------    ----
    1       16990208         22020096      -12.9%
    1       17252352         22020096      -12.1%
    0       37699584         30408704      +10.7%
    1       14368768         22020096      -21.0%
    1       16871424         22020096      -13.2%

The current 10% error tolerenace might be right at the time
test_memcontrol.c was first introduced in v4.18 kernel, but memory reclaim
have certainly evolved quite a bit since then which may result in a bit
more run-to-run variation than previously expected.

Increase the error tolerance to 15% for child 0 and 20% for child 1 to
minimize the chance of this type of failure.  The tolerance is bigger for
child 1 because an upswing in child 0 corresponds to a smaller %err than a
similar downswing in child 1 due to the way %err is used in
values_close().

Before this patch, a 100 test runs of test_memcontrol produced the
following results:

     17 not ok 1 test_memcg_min
     22 not ok 2 test_memcg_low

After applying this patch, there were no test failure for test_memcg_min
and test_memcg_low in 100 test runs.  However, these tests may still fail
once in a while if the memory usage goes beyond the newly extended range.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250502010443.106022-3-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Waiman Long
2025-05-01 21:04:43 -04:00
committed by Andrew Morton
parent fa6b8b5d9f
commit d2def68ae0
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
View File

@@ -496,10 +496,10 @@ static int test_memcg_protection(const char *root, bool min)
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++)
c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current");
if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10))
if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 15))
goto cleanup;
if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10))
if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 20))
goto cleanup;
if (c[3] != 0)