Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm/page_alloc_test: Add logic to isolate a node for testing

2025-02-26 Thread Brendan Jackman
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 12:20, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 19:34, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT > > > > Why not CONFIG_PAGE_ALLOC_KUNIT_TEST? > > VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT is paired with #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT elsewhere (I think > there might even be docs that do this in

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm/page_alloc_test: Add logic to isolate a node for testing

2025-02-25 Thread Brendan Jackman
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 19:34, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT > > Why not CONFIG_PAGE_ALLOC_KUNIT_TEST? VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT is paired with #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT elsewhere (I think there might even be docs that do this in an example) so I just followed the pattern. #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT -> t

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm/page_alloc_test: Add logic to isolate a node for testing

2025-02-24 Thread Yosry Ahmed
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 02:47:13PM +, Brendan Jackman wrote: > In order to test the page allocator, we need an "instance" of the page > allocator that is not subject to unpredictable perturbation by the live > system. The closest thing that we have to an "instance" of the allocator > is a NUMA

[PATCH RFC 3/4] mm/page_alloc_test: Add logic to isolate a node for testing

2025-02-24 Thread Brendan Jackman
In order to test the page allocator, we need an "instance" of the page allocator that is not subject to unpredictable perturbation by the live system. The closest thing that we have to an "instance" of the allocator is a NUMA node. So, introduce a new concept of an "isolated" node. This is an exte