From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qLQpI-004VhD-35 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:11:58 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1b9e93a538dso25015035ad.3 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:50 -0700 From: Yury Norov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value() Message-ID: References: <20230717113709.328671-1-glider@google.com> <20230717113709.328671-3-glider@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230717113709.328671-3-glider@google.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+lwn-linux-arm-kernel=archive.lwn.net@lists.infradead.org List-Archive: To: Alexander Potapenko Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, pcc@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, eugenis@google.com, syednwaris@gmail.com, william.gray@linaro.org On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions > of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned > longs. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko Thanks for the test! > --- > This patch was previously called > "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned" > > v3: > - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value() > - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(), > as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB. > --- > lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c > index 187f5b2db4cf1..c2ab54040c249 100644 > --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c > +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c > @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@ __check_eq_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > return true; > } > > +static bool __init > +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > + const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x) > +{ > + if (exp_ulong != x) { > + pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n", > + srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x); > + return false; > + } > + return true; > +} > > static bool __init > __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > @@ -186,6 +197,7 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > }) > > #define expect_eq_uint(...) __expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__) > +#define expect_eq_ulong(...) __expect_eq(ulong, ##__VA_ARGS__) > #define expect_eq_bitmap(...) __expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__) > #define expect_eq_pbl(...) __expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__) > #define expect_eq_u32_array(...) __expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__) > @@ -1222,6 +1234,25 @@ static void __init test_bitmap_const_eval(void) > BUILD_BUG_ON(~var != ~BIT(25)); > } > > +static void __init test_set_get_value(void) > +{ > + DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2); It's too short. Can you make it long enough to ensure it works as expected when start is not in the 1st word, and start+nbits is in the following word. > + unsigned long val; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG * 2 - 7; i++) { > + bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2); > + bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b10101UL, i, 5); > + val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 5); > + expect_eq_ulong(0b10101UL, val); Can you also check that the rest of bitmap is untouched? Something like: DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, ...); DECLARE_BITMAP(orig, ...); memset(orig, 0x5a, ...); memset(bitmap, 0x5a, ...); for (j = start; j < start + nbits; j++) if (val & BIT(j - start)) __set_bit(j, orig); else __clear_bit(j, orig); bitmap_set_value(bitmap, val, start, nbits); expect_eq_bitmap(orig, bitmap, ...); I like this kind of testing because it gives people a better understanding of what happens behind all that optimization tricks. Thanks, Yury _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE020EB64DC for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231718AbjGQQL4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:11:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57922 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230375AbjGQQLx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:11:53 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E16AC1B1 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1b89bc52cd1so25085015ad.1 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1689610312; x=1692202312; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GraKjblPmgkHpWhLfPrS4evOCsX6uBT2omZ9Uc1NvOA=; b=Wa+e+ovMWUEfgZhpAhQ6cP/N4CQprys+b0GgvzjpdjRTT3ZfcnghEKIodipqH4FKjC JfPAtby6MvPDcLPlHtvTNbkp9TyzOklR/0l9dhZALNtWlJvmqw2C3TSxDgO/eEQ4/FKe nA70ZycKmvG6t8dtwQ5GaMssF2/4hY+7xN7a0qKm0TplQu/XCH8JdDx+x8ZJ3MeBn9T1 aBycXed48+AelPloUNfTNcQQw3GnR1vfneygHTfyy+ZVGuSP+hOCOX313SJFAH2PVZGz BxU0Yuphq1RcpJ3EWVFRf02U1AGHKH+6RB3nsvg/7ZlkqJjdchenE9Q3V9QoZ00VBSt1 Khzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689610312; x=1692202312; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=GraKjblPmgkHpWhLfPrS4evOCsX6uBT2omZ9Uc1NvOA=; b=SQo5Emg+CbZEuHtgtj/cY5jtAtCzZjl/6017UPOirpCGgai5YTgUIotszyLyPDB/9f bBzLzumq8aEDrBrOAYPF31geJALyhzKVYwdG/LK/uAU8PDoqXK0/EgGrdJq3DFkg2QB2 1K0IWExa2QAaZ3JIuMC0TrT7iIxnLigD9/Gj83X7z0tSb/vinCq2a074o8of6N8tpGII VYuaic03kw8bdxKsqBaDAokRL97EIYuUV6y+ZbeIN3DZVBIy1xzCxvdfRHDJfoNLFkd2 +As33bH78nwM/Y++bSWMzSOGKWwrb3nuamJd92H1l8RtOF5qt/76NPpyf4aZiPYIJD6q 9jYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLb3ht2P9tXyLI8UPFYCHN86ubZucTX1SA764cWfe8QWye6Ze683 YniSckKNulZD4KuQbtQD8P4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlHtGugtj2wOl3jCTD9375jtpiEKqzSxQI+CP/Y/iQZoimSjQobzhyvLwFAQaOfx2ZwGVC0dSg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e995:b0:1b6:af1a:7dd3 with SMTP id f21-20020a170902e99500b001b6af1a7dd3mr11600629plb.23.1689610312229; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (72-24-220-98.cpe.sparklight.net. [72.24.220.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i10-20020a170902eb4a00b001b895a17429sm54534pli.280.2023.07.17.09.11.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:11:50 -0700 From: Yury Norov To: Alexander Potapenko Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, pcc@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, eugenis@google.com, syednwaris@gmail.com, william.gray@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value() Message-ID: References: <20230717113709.328671-1-glider@google.com> <20230717113709.328671-3-glider@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230717113709.328671-3-glider@google.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions > of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned > longs. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko Thanks for the test! > --- > This patch was previously called > "lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned" > > v3: > - switch to using bitmap_{set,get}_value() > - change the expected bit pattern in test_set_get_value(), > as the test was incorrectly assuming 0 is the LSB. > --- > lib/test_bitmap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c > index 187f5b2db4cf1..c2ab54040c249 100644 > --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c > +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c > @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@ __check_eq_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > return true; > } > > +static bool __init > +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > + const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x) > +{ > + if (exp_ulong != x) { > + pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n", > + srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x); > + return false; > + } > + return true; > +} > > static bool __init > __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > @@ -186,6 +197,7 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line, > }) > > #define expect_eq_uint(...) __expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__) > +#define expect_eq_ulong(...) __expect_eq(ulong, ##__VA_ARGS__) > #define expect_eq_bitmap(...) __expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__) > #define expect_eq_pbl(...) __expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__) > #define expect_eq_u32_array(...) __expect_eq(u32_array, ##__VA_ARGS__) > @@ -1222,6 +1234,25 @@ static void __init test_bitmap_const_eval(void) > BUILD_BUG_ON(~var != ~BIT(25)); > } > > +static void __init test_set_get_value(void) > +{ > + DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2); It's too short. Can you make it long enough to ensure it works as expected when start is not in the 1st word, and start+nbits is in the following word. > + unsigned long val; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG * 2 - 7; i++) { > + bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITS_PER_LONG * 2); > + bitmap_set_value(bitmap, 0b10101UL, i, 5); > + val = bitmap_get_value(bitmap, i, 5); > + expect_eq_ulong(0b10101UL, val); Can you also check that the rest of bitmap is untouched? Something like: DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, ...); DECLARE_BITMAP(orig, ...); memset(orig, 0x5a, ...); memset(bitmap, 0x5a, ...); for (j = start; j < start + nbits; j++) if (val & BIT(j - start)) __set_bit(j, orig); else __clear_bit(j, orig); bitmap_set_value(bitmap, val, start, nbits); expect_eq_bitmap(orig, bitmap, ...); I like this kind of testing because it gives people a better understanding of what happens behind all that optimization tricks. Thanks, Yury