Hi Waiman.
On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 09:41:58PM -0400, Waiman Long longman@redhat.com wrote: ...
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index 16f5d74ae762..bab826b6b7b0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
I'd suggest updating also the header of the test for clarity and then exempt the Child 2 ('E') conditionally from comparisons, something like:
@@ -380,10 +380,10 @@ static bool reclaim_until(const char *memcg, long goal); * * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M - * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 - * A/B/F memory.current = 0 + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M, memory.events:low > 0 + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M, memory.events:low > 0 + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0, memory.events:low not specified (==0 w/out memory_recursiveprot) + * A/B/F memory.current = 0, memory.events:low == 0 * (for origin of the numbers, see model in memcg_protection.m.) * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is @@ -527,6 +527,7 @@ static int test_memcg_protection(const char *root, bool min)
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) { int no_low_events_index = 1; + int ignore_low_events_index = has_recursiveprot ? 2 : -1; long low, oom;
oom = cg_read_key_long(children[i], "memory.events", "oom "); @@ -534,6 +535,8 @@ static int test_memcg_protection(const char *root, bool min)
if (oom) goto cleanup; + if (i == ignore_low_events_index) + continue; if (i <= no_low_events_index && low <= 0) goto cleanup; if (i > no_low_events_index && low)