Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
--- v2: * use mm-new * add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit * adjust the change log a little * drop RB and resend --- tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len) return result; }
-static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, size_t len) +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hpages, size_t len) { unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after; size_t i;
- if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize)) + if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize)) ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
rss_anon_before = rss_anon(); @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ void split_pmd_zero_pages(void) size_t len = nr_hpages * pmd_pagesize;
one_page = allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(len); - verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(one_page, len); + verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(one_page, nr_hpages, len); ksft_test_result_pass("Split zero filled huge pages successful\n"); free(one_page); }
On 8/10/25 1:12 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
v2:
- use mm-new
- add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit
- adjust the change log a little
- drop RB and resend
tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len) return result; } -static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, size_t len) +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hpages, size_t len)
We are re-adding this argument because nr_hpages should be the same in both split_pmd_zero_pages and verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes, correct? I was just wondering — since the value is currently hardcoded in both functions, would it be preferable to pass it as an argument, or keep it hardcoded, What benefit do we gain by re-adding this argument?
{ unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after; size_t i;
- if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
- if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize)) ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
rss_anon_before = rss_anon(); @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ void split_pmd_zero_pages(void) size_t len = nr_hpages * pmd_pagesize; one_page = allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(len);
- verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(one_page, len);
- verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(one_page, nr_hpages, len); ksft_test_result_pass("Split zero filled huge pages successful\n"); free(one_page); }
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 07:07:47PM +0530, Donet Tom wrote:
On 8/10/25 1:12 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
v2:
- use mm-new
- add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit
- adjust the change log a little
- drop RB and resend
tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len) return result; } -static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, size_t len) +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hpages, size_t len)
We are re-adding this argument because nr_hpages should be the same in both split_pmd_zero_pages and verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes, correct? I was just wondering — since the value is currently hardcoded in both functions, would it be preferable to pass it as an argument, or keep it hardcoded, What benefit do we gain by re-adding this argument?
Thanks for your comment.
It looks the correct way to do so.
On 8/11/25 6:23 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 07:07:47PM +0530, Donet Tom wrote:
On 8/10/25 1:12 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
v2: * use mm-new * add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit * adjust the change log a little * drop RB and resend
tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len) return result; } -static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, size_t len) +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hpages, size_t len)
We are re-adding this argument because nr_hpages should be the same in both split_pmd_zero_pages and verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes, correct? I was just wondering — since the value is currently hardcoded in both functions, would it be preferable to pass it as an argument, or keep it hardcoded, What benefit do we gain by re-adding this argument?
Thanks for your comment.
It looks the correct way to do so.
Thank you for the clarification
LGTM
Reviewed by: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com
On 2025/8/10 03:42, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
v2:
- use mm-new
- add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit
- adjust the change log a little
- drop RB and resend
LGTM. Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com
tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c index 5ab488fab1cd..63ac82f0b9e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c @@ -105,12 +105,12 @@ static char *allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(size_t len) return result; } -static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, size_t len) +static void verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(char *one_page, int nr_hpages, size_t len) { unsigned long rss_anon_before, rss_anon_after; size_t i;
- if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, 4, pmd_pagesize))
- if (!check_huge_anon(one_page, nr_hpages, pmd_pagesize)) ksft_exit_fail_msg("No THP is allocated\n");
rss_anon_before = rss_anon(); @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ void split_pmd_zero_pages(void) size_t len = nr_hpages * pmd_pagesize; one_page = allocate_zero_filled_hugepage(len);
- verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(one_page, len);
- verify_rss_anon_split_huge_page_all_zeroes(one_page, nr_hpages, len); ksft_test_result_pass("Split zero filled huge pages successful\n"); free(one_page); }
On 09.08.25 21:42, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com
On 9 Aug 2025, at 15:42, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
v2:
- use mm-new
- add back nr_hpages which is removed by an early commit
- adjust the change log a little
- drop RB and resend
tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
LGTM. Reviewed-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
Best Regards, Yan, Zi
On Sat, Aug 09, 2025 at 07:42:09PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com Cc: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Donet Tom donettom@linux.ibm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
Reviewed-by: Vishal Moola (Oracle) vishal.moola@gmail.com
Currently it hard codes the number of hugepage to check for check_huge_anon(), but it would be more reasonable to do the check based on a number passed in.
Pass in the hugepage number and do the check based on it.
LGTM. Reviewed-by: wang lian lianux.mm@gmail.com
Best regards, wang lian
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org