Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] selftests/mm: separate GUP microbenchmarking from functional testing

[Sarthak Sharma]

Hi Dev!

On 5/29/26 11:36 AM, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/05/26 11:27 am, Sarthak Sharma wrote:
>> Hi Andrew!
>>
>> On 5/28/26 12:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 May 2026 19:54:27 +0530 Sarthak Sharma <sarthak.sharma@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gup_test.c currently serves two distinct purposes: microbenchmarking
>>>> (GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK, PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK, PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK) and
>>>> functional correctness testing (GUP_BASIC_TEST, PIN_BASIC_TEST,
>>>> DUMP_USER_PAGES_TEST). Mixing these in a single binary means functional
>>>> tests cannot be run or reported individually and run_vmtests.sh must
>>>> invoke the binary multiple times with different flag combinations to
>>>> cover all configurations.
>>>>
>>>> This patch series separates the two concerns: tools/mm/gup_bench for
>>>> benchmarking and tools/testing/selftests/mm/gup_test for functional
>>>> testing. To avoid duplicating HugeTLB and related file helpers, the
>>>> series first prepares the existing file helpers for sharing, then moves
>>>> the common helper code to tools/lib/mm/ so it can be shared by both
>>>> selftests and tools/mm.
>>>
>>> Thanks.  I'll duck this for now, see what reviewers have to say.
>>>
>>> Sashiko still has a couple of nags.  Minor stuff, arguably ignorable.
>>> 	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260527142432.230127-1-sarthak.sharma@xxxxxxx
>>
>> Thanks! I went through Sashiko's review.
>>
>> Both the points are valid but look very minor to me: one is a temporary
>> x86 build issue fixed by the next patch and the other is stricter
> 
> For the sake of bisection, we try to make patches such that each patch
> when applied one by one, does not break the build. Sashiko says that
> applying this patch breaks mm-selftests build for x86, so this needs
> to be fixed : )
> 
> Although if there is no other major review comment, instead of respinning
> you could simply reply to this patch with a fix patch and Andrew can
> incorporate that : )

Thanks, that makes sense.

I'll wait for reviewer feedback for now. If no major comment comes in,
I'll send a fix patch to move the x86 Makefile change from patch 3 to
patch 2.

> 
>> argument validation for -F in gup_bench.
> 
>>
>> I don't feel they require a v5 on their own. Let's wait for reviewer
>> feedback. If a respin is needed then I'll fold these cleanups in as well.
>>
>