[PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Rebecca Mckeever]

Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.

setup_numa_memblock_generic():
- allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
  of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
  used to scale the memory in each node

setup_numa_memblock():
- allows for setting up a default memory layout

Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
layout based on MEM_SIZE.

Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
16 NUMA nodes.

Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
---
 .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
 tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
 tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
--- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
+++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 
 # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
 ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
-	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
+	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
 endif
 
 # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
+++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
 
 static int verbose;
 
+static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
+	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
+};
+
 /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
 bool movable_node_enabled;
 
@@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
 	fill_memblock();
 }
 
+/**
+ * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
+ * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
+ * dummy physical memory.
+ * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
+ * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
+ * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
+ *
+ * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
+ */
+void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
+				 int node_cnt, int factor)
+{
+	phys_addr_t base;
+	int flags;
+
+	reset_memblock_regions();
+	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
+	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
+
+	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
+		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
+
+		memblock_add_node(base, size, i, flags);
+		base += size;
+	}
+	fill_memblock();
+}
+
+void setup_numa_memblock(void)
+{
+	setup_numa_memblock_generic(node_sizes, NUMA_NODES, MEM_FACTOR);
+}
+
 void dummy_physical_memory_init(void)
 {
 	memory_block.base = malloc(MEM_SIZE);
diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
index 4fd3534ff955..e5117d959d6c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
+++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
@@ -10,7 +10,11 @@
 #include <linux/printk.h>
 #include <../selftests/kselftest.h>
 
-#define MEM_SIZE SZ_16K
+#define MEM_SIZE		SZ_16K
+#define NUMA_NODES		8
+
+/* used to resize values that need to scale with MEM_SIZE */
+#define MEM_FACTOR		(MEM_SIZE / SZ_16K)
 
 enum test_flags {
 	TEST_ZEROED = 0x0,
@@ -100,6 +104,9 @@ struct region {
 void reset_memblock_regions(void);
 void reset_memblock_attributes(void);
 void setup_memblock(void);
+void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
+				 int node_cnt, int factor);
+void setup_numa_memblock(void);
 void dummy_physical_memory_init(void);
 void dummy_physical_memory_cleanup(void);
 void parse_args(int argc, char **argv);
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[David Hildenbrand]

On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> 
> setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
>   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
>   used to scale the memory in each node
> 
> setup_numa_memblock():
> - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> 
> Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> 
> Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> 16 NUMA nodes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
>  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
>  
>  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
>  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
> -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
> +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
>  endif
>  
>  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
>  
>  static int verbose;
>  
> +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
> +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
> +};
> +
>  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
>  bool movable_node_enabled;
>  
> @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
>  	fill_memblock();
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> + * dummy physical memory.
> + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> + *
> + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> + */
> +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> +{
> +	phys_addr_t base;
> +	int flags;
> +
> +	reset_memblock_regions();
> +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> +
> +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];

I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
array.

Can you enlighten me? :)

Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Rebecca Mckeever]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:17:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> > for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> > allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> > setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> > 
> > setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> > - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
> >   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
> >   used to scale the memory in each node
> > 
> > setup_numa_memblock():
> > - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> > 
> > Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> > layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> > 
> > Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> > 16 NUMA nodes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
> >  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> >  
> >  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
> >  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
> > -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
> > +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
> >  endif
> >  
> >  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
> >  
> >  static int verbose;
> >  
> > +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
> > +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
> > +};
> > +
> >  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
> >  bool movable_node_enabled;
> >  
> > @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
> >  	fill_memblock();
> >  }
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> > + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> > + * dummy physical memory.
> > + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> > + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> > + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> > + *
> > + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> > + */
> > +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> > +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> > +{
> > +	phys_addr_t base;
> > +	int flags;
> > +
> > +	reset_memblock_regions();
> > +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> > +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> > +
> > +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> > +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> 
> I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
> array.
> 
> Can you enlighten me? :)
> 
> Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?
> 
Without the factor, some of the tests will break if we increase MEM_SIZE
in the future (which we may need to do). I could rewrite them so that the
factor is not needed, but I thought the code would be over-complicated if
I did.

> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
Thanks,
Rebecca

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Mike Rapoport]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:49:09PM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:17:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> > > for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> > > allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> > > setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> > > 
> > > setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> > > - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
> > >   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
> > >   used to scale the memory in each node
> > > 
> > > setup_numa_memblock():
> > > - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> > > 
> > > Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> > > layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> > > 
> > > Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> > > 16 NUMA nodes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
> > >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
> > >  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
> > >  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
> > > -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
> > > +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
> > >  endif
> > >  
> > >  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
> > >  
> > >  static int verbose;
> > >  
> > > +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
> > > +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
> > >  bool movable_node_enabled;
> > >  
> > > @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
> > >  	fill_memblock();
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +/**
> > > + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> > > + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> > > + * dummy physical memory.
> > > + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> > > + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> > > + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> > > + *
> > > + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> > > + */
> > > +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> > > +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> > > +{
> > > +	phys_addr_t base;
> > > +	int flags;
> > > +
> > > +	reset_memblock_regions();
> > > +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> > > +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> > > +
> > > +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> > > +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> > 
> > I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
> > array.
> > 
> > Can you enlighten me? :)
> > 
> > Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?
> > 
> Without the factor, some of the tests will break if we increase MEM_SIZE
> in the future (which we may need to do). I could rewrite them so that the
> factor is not needed, but I thought the code would be over-complicated if
> I did.

What if we make nodes[] to represent the fraction of the memory rather than
a node size? Then the factor won't be required.

> Thanks,
> Rebecca

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Rebecca Mckeever]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 06:12:10PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:49:09PM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:17:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > > Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> > > > for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> > > > allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> > > > setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> > > > 
> > > > setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> > > > - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
> > > >   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
> > > >   used to scale the memory in each node
> > > > 
> > > > setup_numa_memblock():
> > > > - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> > > > 
> > > > Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> > > > layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> > > > 
> > > > Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> > > > 16 NUMA nodes.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
> > > >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
> > > >  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > > index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> > > >  
> > > >  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
> > > >  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
> > > > -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
> > > > +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
> > > >  endif
> > > >  
> > > >  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > > index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > > @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
> > > >  
> > > >  static int verbose;
> > > >  
> > > > +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
> > > > +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
> > > >  bool movable_node_enabled;
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
> > > >  	fill_memblock();
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> > > > + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> > > > + * dummy physical memory.
> > > > + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> > > > + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> > > > + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> > > > + *
> > > > + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> > > > +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	phys_addr_t base;
> > > > +	int flags;
> > > > +
> > > > +	reset_memblock_regions();
> > > > +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> > > > +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> > > > +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> > > 
> > > I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
> > > array.
> > > 
> > > Can you enlighten me? :)
> > > 
> > > Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?
> > > 
> > Without the factor, some of the tests will break if we increase MEM_SIZE
> > in the future (which we may need to do). I could rewrite them so that the
> > factor is not needed, but I thought the code would be over-complicated if
> > I did.
> 
> What if we make nodes[] to represent the fraction of the memory rather than
> a node size? Then the factor won't be required.
> 
I think that will work. I'll try it.

> > Thanks,
> > Rebecca
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.

Thanks,
Rebecca

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[David Hildenbrand]

On 31.08.22 05:49, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:17:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
>>> Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
>>> for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
>>> allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
>>> setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
>>>
>>> setup_numa_memblock_generic():
>>> - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
>>>   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
>>>   used to scale the memory in each node
>>>
>>> setup_numa_memblock():
>>> - allows for setting up a default memory layout
>>>
>>> Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
>>> layout based on MEM_SIZE.
>>>
>>> Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
>>> 16 NUMA nodes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
>>>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
>>>  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
>>> index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
>>>  
>>>  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
>>>  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
>>> -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
>>> +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
>>>  endif
>>>  
>>>  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
>>> index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
>>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
>>>  
>>>  static int verbose;
>>>  
>>> +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
>>> +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
>>>  bool movable_node_enabled;
>>>  
>>> @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
>>>  	fill_memblock();
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/**
>>> + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
>>> + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
>>> + * dummy physical memory.
>>> + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
>>> + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
>>> + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
>>> + *
>>> + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
>>> + */
>>> +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
>>> +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
>>> +{
>>> +	phys_addr_t base;
>>> +	int flags;
>>> +
>>> +	reset_memblock_regions();
>>> +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
>>> +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
>>> +
>>> +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
>>> +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
>>
>> I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
>> array.
>>
>> Can you enlighten me? :)
>>
>> Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?
>>
> Without the factor, some of the tests will break if we increase MEM_SIZE
> in the future (which we may need to do). I could rewrite them so that the
> factor is not needed, but I thought the code would be over-complicated if
> I did.

Independent of the suggestion from Mike, I wonder if we should really
care about (eventual) MEM_SIZE changes for now if not caring simplifies
the current code.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Rebecca Mckeever]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:06:48AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.08.22 05:49, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:17:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> >>> Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> >>> for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> >>> allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> >>> setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> >>>
> >>> setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> >>> - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
> >>>   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
> >>>   used to scale the memory in each node
> >>>
> >>> setup_numa_memblock():
> >>> - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> >>>
> >>> Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> >>> layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> >>>
> >>> Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> >>> 16 NUMA nodes.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
> >>>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
> >>>  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> >>> index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> >>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> >>>  
> >>>  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
> >>>  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
> >>> -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
> >>> +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
> >>>  endif
> >>>  
> >>>  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> >>> index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> >>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
> >>>  
> >>>  static int verbose;
> >>>  
> >>> +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
> >>> +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>>  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
> >>>  bool movable_node_enabled;
> >>>  
> >>> @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
> >>>  	fill_memblock();
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> >>> + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> >>> + * dummy physical memory.
> >>> + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> >>> + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> >>> + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> >>> + *
> >>> + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> >>> +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	phys_addr_t base;
> >>> +	int flags;
> >>> +
> >>> +	reset_memblock_regions();
> >>> +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> >>> +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> >>> +
> >>> +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> >>> +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> >>
> >> I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
> >> array.
> >>
> >> Can you enlighten me? :)
> >>
> >> Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?
> >>
> > Without the factor, some of the tests will break if we increase MEM_SIZE
> > in the future (which we may need to do). I could rewrite them so that the
> > factor is not needed, but I thought the code would be over-complicated if
> > I did.
> 
> Independent of the suggestion from Mike, I wonder if we should really
> care about (eventual) MEM_SIZE changes for now if not caring simplifies
> the current code.
> 
Maybe not. I'm going to try Mike's suggestion, but I will keep this in
mind if the code seems too complicated.

> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
Thanks,
Rebecca

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Mike Rapoport]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 02:05:31AM -0700, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> 
> setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
>   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
>   used to scale the memory in each node
> 
> setup_numa_memblock():
> - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> 
> Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> 
> Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> 16 NUMA nodes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
>  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

...
  
> +/**
> + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> + * dummy physical memory.
> + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> + *
> + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> + */
> +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> +				 int node_cnt, int factor)

I only had time for a quick look and it seems this function is never used
on its own.
Let's fold it into setup_numa_memblock() for now.

> +{
> +	phys_addr_t base;
> +	int flags;
> +
> +	reset_memblock_regions();
> +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> +
> +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> +
> +		memblock_add_node(base, size, i, flags);
> +		base += size;
> +	}
> +	fill_memblock();
> +}
> +
> +void setup_numa_memblock(void)
> +{
> +	setup_numa_memblock_generic(node_sizes, NUMA_NODES, MEM_FACTOR);
> +}
> +

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

[Rebecca Mckeever]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 06:15:41PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 02:05:31AM -0700, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> > for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> > allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> > setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> > 
> > setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> > - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
> >   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
> >   used to scale the memory in each node
> > 
> > setup_numa_memblock():
> > - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> > 
> > Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> > layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> > 
> > Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> > 16 NUMA nodes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
> >  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> ...
>   
> > +/**
> > + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> > + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> > + * dummy physical memory.
> > + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> > + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> > + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> > + *
> > + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> > + */
> > +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> > +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> 
> I only had time for a quick look and it seems this function is never used
> on its own.
> Let's fold it into setup_numa_memblock() for now.
> 
Okay, will do.

> > +{
> > +	phys_addr_t base;
> > +	int flags;
> > +
> > +	reset_memblock_regions();
> > +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> > +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> > +
> > +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> > +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> > +
> > +		memblock_add_node(base, size, i, flags);
> > +		base += size;
> > +	}
> > +	fill_memblock();
> > +}
> > +
> > +void setup_numa_memblock(void)
> > +{
> > +	setup_numa_memblock_generic(node_sizes, NUMA_NODES, MEM_FACTOR);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.

Thanks,
Rebecca

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] memblock tests: add top-down NUMA tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid*

[David Hildenbrand]

On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> Add tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid() and memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw()
> where the simulated physical memory is set up with multiple NUMA nodes.
> Additionally, all of these tests set nid != NUMA_NO_NODE. These tests are
> run with a top-down allocation direction.
> 
> The tested scenarios are:
> 
> Range unrestricted:
> - region can be allocated in the specific node requested:
>       + there are no previously reserved regions
>       + the requested node is partially reserved but has enough space
> - the specific node requested cannot accommodate the request, but the
>   region can be allocated in a different node:
>       + there are no previously reserved regions, but node is too small
>       + the requested node is fully reserved
>       + the requested node is partially reserved and does not have
>         enough space
> 
> Range restricted:
> - region can be allocated in the specific node requested after dropping
>   min_addr:
>       + range partially overlaps with two different nodes, where the first
>         node is the requested node
>       + range partially overlaps with two different nodes, where the
>         requested node ends before min_addr
> - region cannot be allocated in the specific node requested, but it can be
>   allocated in the requested range:
>       + range overlaps with multiple nodes along node boundaries, and the
>         requested node ends before min_addr
>       + range overlaps with multiple nodes along node boundaries, and the
>         requested node starts after max_addr
> - region cannot be allocated in the specific node requested, but it can be
>   allocated after dropping min_addr:
>       + range partially overlaps with two different nodes, where the
>         second node is the requested node
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c | 702 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.h |  16 +
>  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h        |  18 +
>  3 files changed, 725 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> index 2c1d5035e057..a410f1318402 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> @@ -1102,7 +1102,7 @@ static int alloc_try_nid_bottom_up_cap_min_check(void)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -/* Test case wrappers */
> +/* Test case wrappers for range tests */
>  static int alloc_try_nid_simple_check(void)
>  {
>  	test_print("\tRunning %s...\n", __func__);
> @@ -1234,17 +1234,10 @@ static int alloc_try_nid_low_max_check(void)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int memblock_alloc_nid_checks_internal(int flags)
> +static int memblock_alloc_nid_range_checks(void)
>  {
> -	const char *func = get_func_testing(flags);
> -
> -	alloc_nid_test_flags = flags;
> -	prefix_reset();
> -	prefix_push(func);
> -	test_print("Running %s tests...\n", func);
> -
> -	reset_memblock_attributes();
> -	dummy_physical_memory_init();
> +	test_print("Running %s range tests...\n",
> +		   get_func_testing(alloc_nid_test_flags));
>  
>  	alloc_try_nid_simple_check();
>  	alloc_try_nid_misaligned_check();
> @@ -1261,6 +1254,693 @@ static int memblock_alloc_nid_checks_internal(int flags)
>  	alloc_try_nid_reserved_all_check();
>  	alloc_try_nid_low_max_check();
>  
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * A test that tries to allocate a memory region in a specific NUMA node that
> + * has enough memory to allocate a region of the requested size.
> + * Expect to allocate an aligned region at the end of the requested node.
> + */
> +static int alloc_try_nid_top_down_numa_simple_check(void)
> +{
> +	int nid_req = 3;
> +	struct memblock_region *new_rgn = &memblock.reserved.regions[0];
> +	struct memblock_region *req_node = &memblock.memory.regions[nid_req];
> +	void *allocated_ptr = NULL;
> +
> +	PREFIX_PUSH();
> +
> +	phys_addr_t size;
> +	phys_addr_t min_addr;
> +	phys_addr_t max_addr;

Usually we define variables in a single block. So, before the
PREFIX_PUSH(). Same applies to the other functions.

> +
> +	setup_numa_memblock();
> +
> +	ASSERT_LE(SZ_4, req_node->size);
> +	size = req_node->size / SZ_4;
> +	min_addr = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
> +	max_addr = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
> +
> +	allocated_ptr = run_memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES,
> +						   min_addr, max_addr, nid_req);
> +
> +	ASSERT_NE(allocated_ptr, NULL);
> +	verify_mem_content(allocated_ptr, size, alloc_nid_test_flags);
> +
> +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->size, size);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->base, region_end(req_node) - size);
> +	ASSERT_LE(req_node->base, new_rgn->base);
> +
> +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, 1);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, size);
> +
> +	test_pass_pop();
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

[...]

> +
> +/*
> + * A test that tries to allocate a memory region that spans over the min_addr
> + * and max_addr range and overlaps with two different nodes, where the first
> + * node is the requested node:
> + *
> + *                                min_addr
> + *                                |           max_addr
> + *                                |           |
> + *                                v           v
> + *  |           +-----------------------+-----------+              |
> + *  |           |       requested       |   node3   |              |
> + *  +-----------+-----------------------+-----------+--------------+
> + *                                +           +
> + *  |                       +-----------+                          |
> + *  |                       |    rgn    |                          |
> + *  +-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
> + *
> + * Expect to drop the lower limit and allocate a cleared memory region that
> + * ends at the end of the requested node.

Interesting, allocating out-of-range is expected behavior? At least to
me that wasn't immediately clear :)

[...]

> +
> +/*
> + * A test that tries to allocate a memory region that spans over the min_addr
> + * and max_addr range and overlaps with two different nodes, where the second
> + * node is the requested node:
> + *
> + *                               min_addr
> + *                               |         max_addr
> + *                               |         |
> + *                               v         v
> + *  |      +--------------------------+---------+                |
> + *  |      |         expected         |requested|                |
> + *  +------+--------------------------+---------+----------------+
> + *                               +         +
> + *  |                       +---------+                          |
> + *  |                       |   rgn   |                          |
> + *  +-----------------------+---------+--------------------------+
> + *
> + * Expect to drop the lower limit and allocate a cleared memory region that

Does the "cleared memory region" part still apply? Or would we also end
up calling the raw variant from run_memblock_alloc_try_nid() ?

> + * ends at the end of the first node that overlaps with the range.
> + */
> +static int alloc_try_nid_top_down_numa_split_range_high_check(void)
> +{
> +	int nid_req = 3;
> +	int nid_exp = nid_req - 1;
> +	struct memblock_region *new_rgn = &memblock.reserved.regions[0];
> +	struct memblock_region *exp_node = &memblock.memory.regions[nid_exp];
> +	void *allocated_ptr = NULL;
> +
> +	PREFIX_PUSH();
> +
> +	phys_addr_t size = SZ_512;
> +	phys_addr_t min_addr;
> +	phys_addr_t max_addr;
> +	phys_addr_t exp_node_end;
> +
> +	setup_numa_memblock();
> +
> +	exp_node_end = region_end(exp_node);
> +	min_addr = exp_node_end - SZ_256;
> +	max_addr = min_addr + size;
> +
> +	allocated_ptr = run_memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES,
> +						   min_addr, max_addr, nid_req);
> +
> +	ASSERT_NE(allocated_ptr, NULL);
> +	verify_mem_content(allocated_ptr, size, alloc_nid_test_flags);
> +
> +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->size, size);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->base, exp_node_end - size);
> +	ASSERT_LE(exp_node->base, new_rgn->base);
> +
> +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, 1);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, size);
> +
> +	test_pass_pop();
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}


[...]

> +int __memblock_alloc_nid_numa_checks(void)
> +{
> +	test_print("Running %s NUMA tests...\n",
> +		   get_func_testing(alloc_nid_test_flags));
> +
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_simple_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_small_node_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_node_reserved_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_part_reserved_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_part_reserved_fallback_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_split_range_low_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_split_range_high_check();
> +
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_no_overlap_split_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_no_overlap_low_check();
> +	alloc_try_nid_numa_no_overlap_high_check();
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int memblock_alloc_nid_checks_internal(int flags)
> +{
> +	alloc_nid_test_flags = flags;

Empty line missing

> +	prefix_reset();
> +	prefix_push(get_func_testing(flags));
> +
> +	reset_memblock_attributes();
> +	dummy_physical_memory_init();
> +
> +	memblock_alloc_nid_range_checks();
> +	memblock_alloc_nid_numa_checks();
> +
>  	dummy_physical_memory_cleanup();
>  
>  	prefix_pop();


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] memblock tests: add top-down NUMA tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid*

[Rebecca Mckeever]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:56:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > Add tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid() and memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw()
> > where the simulated physical memory is set up with multiple NUMA nodes.
> > Additionally, all of these tests set nid != NUMA_NO_NODE. These tests are
> > run with a top-down allocation direction.
> > 
> > The tested scenarios are:
> > 
> > Range unrestricted:
> > - region can be allocated in the specific node requested:
> >       + there are no previously reserved regions
> >       + the requested node is partially reserved but has enough space
> > - the specific node requested cannot accommodate the request, but the
> >   region can be allocated in a different node:
> >       + there are no previously reserved regions, but node is too small
> >       + the requested node is fully reserved
> >       + the requested node is partially reserved and does not have
> >         enough space
> > 
> > Range restricted:
> > - region can be allocated in the specific node requested after dropping
> >   min_addr:
> >       + range partially overlaps with two different nodes, where the first
> >         node is the requested node
> >       + range partially overlaps with two different nodes, where the
> >         requested node ends before min_addr
> > - region cannot be allocated in the specific node requested, but it can be
> >   allocated in the requested range:
> >       + range overlaps with multiple nodes along node boundaries, and the
> >         requested node ends before min_addr
> >       + range overlaps with multiple nodes along node boundaries, and the
> >         requested node starts after max_addr
> > - region cannot be allocated in the specific node requested, but it can be
> >   allocated after dropping min_addr:
> >       + range partially overlaps with two different nodes, where the
> >         second node is the requested node
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c | 702 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.h |  16 +
> >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h        |  18 +
> >  3 files changed, 725 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > index 2c1d5035e057..a410f1318402 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > @@ -1102,7 +1102,7 @@ static int alloc_try_nid_bottom_up_cap_min_check(void)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* Test case wrappers */
> > +/* Test case wrappers for range tests */
> >  static int alloc_try_nid_simple_check(void)
> >  {
> >  	test_print("\tRunning %s...\n", __func__);
> > @@ -1234,17 +1234,10 @@ static int alloc_try_nid_low_max_check(void)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int memblock_alloc_nid_checks_internal(int flags)
> > +static int memblock_alloc_nid_range_checks(void)
> >  {
> > -	const char *func = get_func_testing(flags);
> > -
> > -	alloc_nid_test_flags = flags;
> > -	prefix_reset();
> > -	prefix_push(func);
> > -	test_print("Running %s tests...\n", func);
> > -
> > -	reset_memblock_attributes();
> > -	dummy_physical_memory_init();
> > +	test_print("Running %s range tests...\n",
> > +		   get_func_testing(alloc_nid_test_flags));
> >  
> >  	alloc_try_nid_simple_check();
> >  	alloc_try_nid_misaligned_check();
> > @@ -1261,6 +1254,693 @@ static int memblock_alloc_nid_checks_internal(int flags)
> >  	alloc_try_nid_reserved_all_check();
> >  	alloc_try_nid_low_max_check();
> >  
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * A test that tries to allocate a memory region in a specific NUMA node that
> > + * has enough memory to allocate a region of the requested size.
> > + * Expect to allocate an aligned region at the end of the requested node.
> > + */
> > +static int alloc_try_nid_top_down_numa_simple_check(void)
> > +{
> > +	int nid_req = 3;
> > +	struct memblock_region *new_rgn = &memblock.reserved.regions[0];
> > +	struct memblock_region *req_node = &memblock.memory.regions[nid_req];
> > +	void *allocated_ptr = NULL;
> > +
> > +	PREFIX_PUSH();
> > +
> > +	phys_addr_t size;
> > +	phys_addr_t min_addr;
> > +	phys_addr_t max_addr;
> 
> Usually we define variables in a single block. So, before the
> PREFIX_PUSH(). Same applies to the other functions.
> 
Got it.

> > +
> > +	setup_numa_memblock();
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_LE(SZ_4, req_node->size);
> > +	size = req_node->size / SZ_4;
> > +	min_addr = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
> > +	max_addr = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
> > +
> > +	allocated_ptr = run_memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES,
> > +						   min_addr, max_addr, nid_req);
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_NE(allocated_ptr, NULL);
> > +	verify_mem_content(allocated_ptr, size, alloc_nid_test_flags);
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->size, size);
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->base, region_end(req_node) - size);
> > +	ASSERT_LE(req_node->base, new_rgn->base);
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, 1);
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, size);
> > +
> > +	test_pass_pop();
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * A test that tries to allocate a memory region that spans over the min_addr
> > + * and max_addr range and overlaps with two different nodes, where the first
> > + * node is the requested node:
> > + *
> > + *                                min_addr
> > + *                                |           max_addr
> > + *                                |           |
> > + *                                v           v
> > + *  |           +-----------------------+-----------+              |
> > + *  |           |       requested       |   node3   |              |
> > + *  +-----------+-----------------------+-----------+--------------+
> > + *                                +           +
> > + *  |                       +-----------+                          |
> > + *  |                       |    rgn    |                          |
> > + *  +-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
> > + *
> > + * Expect to drop the lower limit and allocate a cleared memory region that
> > + * ends at the end of the requested node.
> 
> Interesting, allocating out-of-range is expected behavior? At least to
> me that wasn't immediately clear :)
> 
Yeah, it seems that memblock avoids allocations that would overlap with
more than one node. Do you think I should explain that in the comment?

> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * A test that tries to allocate a memory region that spans over the min_addr
> > + * and max_addr range and overlaps with two different nodes, where the second
> > + * node is the requested node:
> > + *
> > + *                               min_addr
> > + *                               |         max_addr
> > + *                               |         |
> > + *                               v         v
> > + *  |      +--------------------------+---------+                |
> > + *  |      |         expected         |requested|                |
> > + *  +------+--------------------------+---------+----------------+
> > + *                               +         +
> > + *  |                       +---------+                          |
> > + *  |                       |   rgn   |                          |
> > + *  +-----------------------+---------+--------------------------+
> > + *
> > + * Expect to drop the lower limit and allocate a cleared memory region that
> 
> Does the "cleared memory region" part still apply? Or would we also end
> up calling the raw variant from run_memblock_alloc_try_nid() ?
> 
No, it doesn't apply. Thanks for catching this. I should probably add
another patch to update the wording in the pre-existing tests too.

> > + * ends at the end of the first node that overlaps with the range.
> > + */
> > +static int alloc_try_nid_top_down_numa_split_range_high_check(void)
> > +{
> > +	int nid_req = 3;
> > +	int nid_exp = nid_req - 1;
> > +	struct memblock_region *new_rgn = &memblock.reserved.regions[0];
> > +	struct memblock_region *exp_node = &memblock.memory.regions[nid_exp];
> > +	void *allocated_ptr = NULL;
> > +
> > +	PREFIX_PUSH();
> > +
> > +	phys_addr_t size = SZ_512;
> > +	phys_addr_t min_addr;
> > +	phys_addr_t max_addr;
> > +	phys_addr_t exp_node_end;
> > +
> > +	setup_numa_memblock();
> > +
> > +	exp_node_end = region_end(exp_node);
> > +	min_addr = exp_node_end - SZ_256;
> > +	max_addr = min_addr + size;
> > +
> > +	allocated_ptr = run_memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES,
> > +						   min_addr, max_addr, nid_req);
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_NE(allocated_ptr, NULL);
> > +	verify_mem_content(allocated_ptr, size, alloc_nid_test_flags);
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->size, size);
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->base, exp_node_end - size);
> > +	ASSERT_LE(exp_node->base, new_rgn->base);
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, 1);
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, size);
> > +
> > +	test_pass_pop();
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +int __memblock_alloc_nid_numa_checks(void)
> > +{
> > +	test_print("Running %s NUMA tests...\n",
> > +		   get_func_testing(alloc_nid_test_flags));
> > +
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_simple_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_small_node_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_node_reserved_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_part_reserved_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_part_reserved_fallback_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_split_range_low_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_split_range_high_check();
> > +
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_no_overlap_split_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_no_overlap_low_check();
> > +	alloc_try_nid_numa_no_overlap_high_check();
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int memblock_alloc_nid_checks_internal(int flags)
> > +{
> > +	alloc_nid_test_flags = flags;
> 
> Empty line missing
> 
Got it.

> > +	prefix_reset();
> > +	prefix_push(get_func_testing(flags));
> > +
> > +	reset_memblock_attributes();
> > +	dummy_physical_memory_init();
> > +
> > +	memblock_alloc_nid_range_checks();
> > +	memblock_alloc_nid_numa_checks();
> > +
> >  	dummy_physical_memory_cleanup();
> >  
> >  	prefix_pop();
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
>
Thanks,
Rebecca