On 11/10/24 12:19, Donet Tom wrote:
This test verifies that a hugepage, used as a user buffer for
DIO operations, is correctly freed upon unmapping. To test this,
we read the count of free hugepages before and after the mmap,
DIO, and munmap operations, then check if the free hugepage count
is
"selftests: hugetlb_dio: check for initial conditions to
skip in the start")
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom
---
tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb_dio.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb_dio.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb_dio.
On 11/10/24 12:19, Donet Tom wrote:
This test verifies that a hugepage, used as a user buffer for
DIO operations, is correctly freed upon unmapping. To test this,
we read the count of free hugepages before and after the mmap,
DIO, and munmap operations, then check if the free hugepage count
is
#OK hmm2.hmm2_device_private.double_map
ok 53 hmm2.hmm2_device_private.double_map
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom
---
tools/testing/selftests/mm/hmm-tests.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hmm-tests.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hmm-tests.c
index d2c
On 9/27/24 12:48, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
On 9/27/24 10:07 AM, Donet Tom wrote:
The hmm2 double_map test was failing due to an incorrect
buffer->mirror size. The buffer->mirror size was 6, while buffer->ptr
size was 6 * PAGE_SIZE. The test failed because the kernel's
copy_to
On 11/1/24 19:45, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
The test should be skipped if initial conditions aren't fulfilled in
the start instead of failing and outputting non-compliant TAP logs. This
kind of failure pollutes the results. The initial conditions are:
- The test should only execute if /tmp fi
On 11/8/24 16:05, Donet Tom wrote:
On 11/1/24 19:45, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
The test should be skipped if initial conditions aren't fulfilled in
the start instead of failing and outputting non-compliant TAP logs. This
kind of failure pollutes the results. The initial condition
On 11/28/24 18:14, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 10:46:56AM +0530, Donet Tom wrote:
On 11/27/24 21:44, Mark Brown wrote:
+ ksft_test_result(free_hpage_a == free_hpage_b,
+"free huge pages from %u-%u\n", start_off, end_off);
This test a
On 11/27/24 21:44, Mark Brown wrote:
The string logged when a test passes or fails is used by the selftest
framework to identify which test is being reported. The hugetlb_dio test
not only uses the same strings for every test that is run but it also uses
different strings for test passes and fa
#
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom
---
tools/testing/selftests/mm/migration.c | 99 ++
1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/migration.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/migration.c
index 64bcbb7151cf..1e3a595fbf01 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests
: 52428800
Populating.
Not writing to memory.
Using method=0
Shared mapping.
RESERVE mapping.
Allocating using HUGETLBFS.
Assert memory charged correctly for child only use.
actual = 10 MB
expected = 0 MB
cleanup
Feel free to add
Tested-by Donet Tom
Signed-off-by: Li Wang
Cc: Waiman Long
Cc
soft-dirty
CC protection_keys
CC va_high_addr_switch
CC virtual_address_range
CC write_to_hugetlbfs
Reviewed-by:Donet Tom
Tested-by: Donet Tom
/* 4-byte instructions * 16384 = 64K page */
-#define __page_o_noops() asm(".rept 16384 ; nop; .endr")
+#define __page_o
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:57:10PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
Hi Dev
> On 16/06/25 9:36 pm, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> > From: Donet Tom
> >
> > In this patch, we are fixing three issues in the virtual_address_range
> > test.
> >
> > 1. validate_addr()
eOn Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:32:19PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, D
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > On 1
t_fail_msg("Bad address %lx\n", addr);
This looks good to me. Feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Donet Tom
eOn Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:45:09AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 23/06/25 11:02 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:23:02AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 21/06/25 11:25 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 08:15:25PM +0530, Dev
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:23:02AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 21/06/25 11:25 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 08:15:25PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Ja
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 08:15:25PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, D
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 09:27:30AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 25/06/25 10:47 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 06:22:53PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Ja
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:05:11PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 26/06/25 11:12 am, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 09:27:30AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 25/06/25 10:47 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 06:22:53PM +0530, Dev Ja
On 7/3/25 2:44 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.07.25 10:51, Donet Tom wrote:
Hi David
On 7/3/25 2:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
to indicate errors. However, when passed to
On 7/3/25 7:51 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
On 3 Jul 2025, at 4:58, Donet Tom wrote:
On 7/3/25 1:52 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
The split_huge_page_test fails on systems with a 64KB base page size.
This is because the order of a 2MB huge
pagecache folio to order 3 at in-folio offset 16
passed
ok 32 Split PMD-mapped pagecache folio to order 3 at in-folio offset 24
passed
ok 33 Split PMD-mapped pagecache folio to order 4 at in-folio offset 0
passed
ok 34 Split PMD-mapped pagecache folio to order 4 at in-folio offset 16
passed
Fee
Hi David
On 7/3/25 2:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
In ksm_functional_tests, test_child_ksm() returned negative values
to indicate errors. However, when passed to exit(), these were
interpreted as large unsigned values (e.g, -2 became 254), leading t
On 7/3/25 8:11 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
On 3 Jul 2025, at 2:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
PowerPC64 supports a 4PB virtual address space, but this test was
previously limited to 512TB. This patch extends the coverage up to
the full 4PB VA range on PowerPC64.
Memory from 0 to 128TB
On 7/3/25 8:00 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
On 3 Jul 2025, at 2:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
The split_huge_page_test fails on systems with a 64KB base page size.
This is because the order of a 2MB huge page is different:
On 64KB systems, the order is 5.
On 4KB systems, it's 9.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 06:22:53PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, D
On 7/3/25 1:52 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.07.25 08:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
The split_huge_page_test fails on systems with a 64KB base page size.
This is because the order of a 2MB huge page is different:
On 64KB systems, the order is 5.
On 4KB systems, it
On 8/4/25 2:41 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 11:03:59AM +0530, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
This patch fixed 2 issues.
1) After fork() in test_prctl_fork, the child process uses the file
descriptors from the parent process to read ksm_stat and
ksm_merging_pages
On 8/4/25 2:34 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 11:04:00AM +0530, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
The split_huge_page_test fails on systems with a 64KB base page size.
This is because the order of a 2MB huge page is different:
On 64KB systems, the order is 5.
On 4KB
31 matches
Mail list logo
