On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 01:32:25PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 9/23/26 16:46, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm working on a solution. Need better hosting.
> >
> > Thanks! But yeah damn indeed you do! :)
> >
> > Though larger series can scare people off so maybe better to send the tests
> > separately?
>
> In any case, we have to break this down into reviewable pieces. We neglected
> selftests for too long.
>
> ... and there are some schlopped tests in there that we really shouldn't have
> as
> they are way too special and hard to maintain.
>
> Like this monstrosity:
>
> +/*
> + * A folio faulted on another CPU can remain in that CPU's pending LRU batch.
> + * MADV_COLD drains only the calling CPU and must safely skip the non-LRU
> + * folio without changing the mapping.
> + */
> +static void test_madvise_cold_remote_lru_batch(void)
> +{
>
Yeah the intent of these particular tests was to ensure I capture ever
weird branch in the code before i went refactoring it so I ensured there
was no loss of fidelity.
I think we can reasonably delete ~15-20 of these tests. That said, the
code itself is not schlopp, but I believe in showing the work.
~Gregory
