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 kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3650ECAAD5 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 12:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3273680281; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2D64180224; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:57:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 19E4580281; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:57:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB7C80224 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F9816040F for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 12:57:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79881661860.17.A31A76B Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F9BC0064 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 12:57:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 724B2614F4; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 12:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A73A1C433D7; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 12:57:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1662469048; bh=3nr1jQQRLOI5p0ClY1E3xRU8sx1MSZyyig/SAXrzoL8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BhfdkCzJl+khEuyyXzJQ02OJGmKzhU2St1n1WI1kuu02iDdjmHAaWvILnclUohaFj BTs55OL5DDCc3yHAb5ln5rhi4qB4Ek+jKirnTSHrcc6RMo/h8fQUKH/EQ6D2TiLTKv r2mLY7wPX0ifm3p7xQj7IQFnOWKtJ4HCRh0jaSNtQMQ3UD8tMjSor15OQMluCI1vxg OJgIxYt2gAqN9AXHx+YHMImFPpm7vJ9deph/cv7KA6tH5HjBenPuZqCBtelVGfs0BO qQraxqPIvWFS8gwZiRF2Jq+LBbUUDlKojp2g4ZpSQAXDOdHOqZuoIMadoyBgilzmAo XMJx8y5eAg72Q== Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 15:57:13 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: shaoqin.huang@intel.com Cc: Karolina Drobnik , Rebecca Mckeever , David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] memblock test: Add test to memblock_add() 129th region Message-ID: References: <20220902024007.58041-1-shaoqin.huang@intel.com> <20220902024007.58041-2-shaoqin.huang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220902024007.58041-2-shaoqin.huang@intel.com> ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1662469050; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=jYLfVrTTvW4m45OT6Pp2BI9kAYy5dO0ldKoOzFltD3cjwPTzyw8ddwlR5fJMBsNWTisBm1 TMNzoC4dmq9S7W6ge+Cx5drTAkvOnixqxYn9Y7X4E1yCnH3owTSox2LsXdY2kUI+myjTgM oxxcVYOgq+tzrIUkOeyDvW0x3cuRRyw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=BhfdkCzJ; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of rppt@kernel.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rppt@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1662469050; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=lwo/tu7jKXA1AXqwO8KKsysfSxz5GvrO0P1tE7y5sbE=; b=ieQnpU4jhZNMXF47f/9h+eMtossuD7pA+ZzNb5F3XZy3kPCXAMynMlgmsMCp7Wgq78h54C LgNPo8wdjJ5giwTs3YP/bCKFh6ngzQRjYSrAr1hjVC1qRCybJj8HajRYYNQQGe/qyLfdOy 2Zte/Rl5/GfRw71lAqbFFLZoCi9fjZ8= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 66F9BC0064 Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=BhfdkCzJ; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of rppt@kernel.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rppt@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Stat-Signature: zxgww3ntjzfudtrhm3gyta45eckt9zdt X-HE-Tag: 1662469050-476397 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:39:59AM +0800, shaoqin.huang@intel.com wrote: > From: Shaoqin Huang > > Add 129th region into the memblock, and this will trigger the > memblock_double_array() function, this needs valid memory regions. So > using dummy_physical_memory_init() to allocate some valid memory region, > and add it into the memblock. It make sure the memblock_double_array() > will always choose the valid memory region that is allocated by the > dummy_physical_memory_init(). So memblock_double_array() must success. > > Another thing should be done is to restore the memory.regions after > memblock_double_array(), due to now the memory.regions is pointing to a > memory region allocated by dummy_physical_memory_init(). And it will > affect the subsequent tests if we don't restore the memory region. So > simply record the origin region, and restore it after the test. > > Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang > --- > tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c | 15 +++- > tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h | 4 ++ > 3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c > index a13a57ba0815..b9877344d3a1 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c > @@ -423,6 +423,96 @@ static int memblock_add_near_max_check(void) > return 0; > } > > +/* > + * A test that trying to add the 129th memory block. > + * Expect to trigger memblock_double_array() to double the > + * memblock.memory.max, find a new valid memory as > + * memory.regions. > + */ > +static int memblock_add_many_check(void) > +{ > + int i; > + void *orig_region; > + struct region r = { > + .base = SZ_16K, > + .size = MEM_SIZE, > + }; > + /* Record these allocated memory, they will be free at the end. */ > + phys_addr_t base[INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1]; > + > + PREFIX_PUSH(); > + > + reset_memblock_regions(); > + memblock_allow_resize(); > + > + for (i = 0; i < INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS; i++) { > + /* Add some memory region to fulfill the memblock. */ > + dummy_physical_memory_init(); > + base[i] = dummy_physical_memory_base(); > + memblock_add(base[i], MEM_SIZE); Looks like we are going in rounds. The simulated physical memory is what dummy_physical_memory_init() allocates. Every memblock_add() may take a range from that "physical memory" and register it with memblock. There is no need to allocate new chunk for every memblock_add(), just make sure that dummy_physical_memory_init() allocates enough memory. > + > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.cnt, i + 1); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.total_size, (i + 1) * MEM_SIZE); > + } > + > + orig_region = memblock.memory.regions; > + > + /* > + * This adds the 129 memory_region, and makes it double array. Now > + * MEM_SIZE is 16K, which is enough, the doubled array will occupy 8K > + * memory region, so it must success. > + */ > + dummy_physical_memory_init(); > + base[i] = dummy_physical_memory_base(); > + memblock_add(base[i], MEM_SIZE); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.cnt, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.total_size, (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1) * MEM_SIZE); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.max, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, 1); > + /* This is the size used by new memory.regions. Check it. */ > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, PAGE_ALIGN(INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2 * > + sizeof(struct memblock_region))); > + > + /* > + * After double array, we want to make sure the memblock.memory.regions > + * is actually on a valid memory, so we try to add a memory region which What do you mean by "actually on a valid memory"? How would memblock_double_array() succeed otherwise? > + * the base is very small, it should be insert to the first region. And > + * the memory.cnt and memory.total_size will both be changed. > + * Let's check it. > + */ > + memblock_add(r.base, r.size); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.regions[0].base, r.base); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.regions[0].size, r.size); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.cnt, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 2); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.total_size, (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 2) * MEM_SIZE); > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.max, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2); > + > + /* > + * Due to we dummy_physical_memory_init() many memory region in this > + * test, we need to free it. Instead of expose the memory_block and > + * directly modify it's base, we pass an array which record all the > + * memory base that we allocated to this function, and let it to do the > + * clean job. > + */ > + dummy_physical_memory_cleanup_many(base, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1); > + > + /* > + * The current memory.regions is occupying a range of memory that > + * allocated from dummy_physical_memory_init(). After free the memory, > + * we must not use it. So restore the origin memory region to make sure > + * the tests can run as normal and not affected by the double array. > + */ > + memblock.memory.regions = orig_region; > + memblock.memory.cnt = INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS; > + > + test_pass_pop(); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > static int memblock_add_checks(void) > { > prefix_reset(); > @@ -438,6 +528,7 @@ static int memblock_add_checks(void) > memblock_add_twice_check(); > memblock_add_between_check(); > memblock_add_near_max_check(); > + memblock_add_many_check(); > > prefix_pop(); > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c > index eec6901081af..1fb347c5c099 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c > @@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ > #include > #include > > -#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS 128 > -#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS > #define PREFIXES_MAX 15 > #define DELIM ": " > > @@ -84,6 +82,19 @@ void dummy_physical_memory_cleanup(void) > free(memory_block.base); > } > > +void dummy_physical_memory_cleanup_many(phys_addr_t *base, int cnt) > +{ > + for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { > + memory_block.base = (void *)base[i]; > + dummy_physical_memory_cleanup(); > + } > +} > + > +phys_addr_t dummy_physical_memory_base(void) > +{ > + return (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base; > +} > + > static void usage(const char *prog) > { > BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(help_opts) != ARRAY_SIZE(long_opts) - 1); > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h > index 78128e109a95..310f0be2b2a2 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ > #include <../selftests/kselftest.h> > > #define MEM_SIZE SZ_16K > +#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS 128 > +#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS > > enum test_flags { > /* No special request. */ > @@ -104,6 +106,8 @@ void reset_memblock_attributes(void); > void setup_memblock(void); > void dummy_physical_memory_init(void); > void dummy_physical_memory_cleanup(void); > +void dummy_physical_memory_cleanup_many(phys_addr_t *base, int cnt); > +phys_addr_t dummy_physical_memory_base(void); > void parse_args(int argc, char **argv); > > void test_fail(void); > -- > 2.34.1 > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.