On 2026/1/12 17:40, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote: > On 1/12/26 10:19, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2026/1/9 21:45, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote: >>> On 1/7/26 10:37, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> Introduce selftests to validate the functionality of memory failure. >>>> These tests help ensure that memory failure handling for anonymous >>>> pages, pagecaches pages works correctly, including proper SIGBUS >>>> delivery to user processes, page isolation, and recovery paths. >>>> >>>> Currently madvise syscall is used to inject memory failures. And only >>>> anonymous pages and pagecaches are tested. More test scenarios, e.g. >>>> hugetlb, shmem, thp, will be added. Also more memory failure injecting >>>> methods will be supported, e.g. APEI Error INJection, if required. >>> >> >> Thanks for test and report. :) >> >>> 0day reports that these tests fail: >>> >>> # # ------------------------ >>> # # running ./memory-failure >>> # # ------------------------ >>> # # TAP version 13 >>> # # 1..6 >>> # # # Starting 6 tests from 2 test cases. >>> # # # RUN memory_failure.madv_hard.anon ... >>> # # # OK memory_failure.madv_hard.anon >>> # # ok 1 memory_failure.madv_hard.anon >>> # # # RUN memory_failure.madv_hard.clean_pagecache ... >>> # # # memory-failure.c:166:clean_pagecache:Expected setjmp (1) == 0 (0) >>> # # # clean_pagecache: Test terminated by assertion >>> # # # FAIL memory_failure.madv_hard.clean_pagecache >>> # # not ok 2 memory_failure.madv_hard.clean_pagecache >>> # # # RUN memory_failure.madv_hard.dirty_pagecache ... >>> # # # memory-failure.c:207:dirty_pagecache:Expected >>> unpoison_memory(self->pfn) (-16) == 0 (0) >>> # # # dirty_pagecache: Test terminated by assertion >>> # # # FAIL memory_failure.madv_hard.dirty_pagecache >>> # # not ok 3 memory_failure.madv_hard.dirty_pagecache >>> # # # RUN memory_failure.madv_soft.anon ... >>> # # # OK memory_failure.madv_soft.anon >>> # # ok 4 memory_failure.madv_soft.anon >>> # # # RUN memory_failure.madv_soft.clean_pagecache ... >>> # # # memory-failure.c:282:clean_pagecache:Expected variant->inject(self, >>> addr) (-1) == 0 (0) >>> # # # clean_pagecache: Test terminated by assertion >>> # # # FAIL memory_failure.madv_soft.clean_pagecache >>> # # not ok 5 memory_failure.madv_soft.clean_pagecache >>> # # # RUN memory_failure.madv_soft.dirty_pagecache ... >>> # # # memory-failure.c:319:dirty_pagecache:Expected variant->inject(self, >>> addr) (-1) == 0 (0) >>> # # # dirty_pagecache: Test terminated by assertion >>> # # # FAIL memory_failure.madv_soft.dirty_pagecache >>> # # not ok 6 memory_failure.madv_soft.dirty_pagecache >>> # # # FAILED: 2 / 6 tests passed. >>> # # # Totals: pass:2 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>> # # [FAIL] >>> # not ok 71 memory-failure # exit=1 >>> >>> >>> Can the test maybe not deal with running in certain environments (config >>> options etc)? >> >> To run the test, I think there should be: >> 1.CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE and CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT should be enabled. >> 2.Root privilege is required. >> 3.For dirty/clean pagecache testcases, the test file >> "./clean-page-cache-test-file" and >> "./dirty-page-cache-test-file" are assumed to be created on non-memory >> file systems >> such as xfs, ext4, etc. >> >> Does your test environment break any of the above rules? > > It is 0day environment, so very likely yes. I suspect 1). > >> Am I expected to add some code to >> guard against this? > > Yes, at least some. > > Checking for root privileges is not required. The tests are commonly run from > non-memory file systems, but, in theory, could be run from nfs etc. > > If you require special file systems, take a look at gup_longterm.o where we > test for some fileystsem types. > > Regarding 1): tools/testing/selftests/mm/config includes the config options > we expect to be set for running MM tests. Extending that might take a while > until environments like 0day would pick up such changes. If you require > something else, make your test SKIP tests if the relevant kernel support is > not there (e.g., sense support and conditionally skip).
Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I will take a close look. Thanks! .
