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

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

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

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