On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 03:41:12PM +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 02:58 PM Hui Zhu <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Hui Zhu <[email protected]> > > > > Exercise BPF-driven async proactive reclaim. A BPF program watches the > > refault stats of a memory-pressured cgroup and, once they grow, reclaims > > a second cgroup from a bpf_wq callback through bpf_proactive_reclaim(). > > Pass/fail rests on the reclaim counters. The workload timings are a > > benchmark, not a criterion, so they are logged only under > > TEST_MEMCG_ASYNC_RECLAIM_BENCH=1, which also runs a baseline without the > > BPF program, recreating the cgroups in between so both runs start cold. > > [...] > > > Signed-off-by: Hui Zhu <[email protected]> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config | 1 + > > .../bpf/prog_tests/memcg_async_reclaim.c | 890 ++++++++++++++++++ > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/memcg_async_reclaim.c | 327 +++++++ > > 3 files changed, 1218 insertions(+) > > 1200 lines of selftest for a 20 line kfunc ? > Sorry that's an overkill.
Yeah I agree. Also I understand that BPF would prefer to have very fast and minimal selftests and selftest for a memory reclaim kfunc would not be that. We have memory.reclaim selftests in cgroup, maybe that would be a better home. Basically whatever we do for memory.reclaim, do the same but using this kfunc. If you don't mind, why not let's just take the patch 1 in bpf tree for now and we will cover the selftest in next release but in cgroup selftests.
