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