Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] mm/hmm/test: add self tests for HMM

Ralph Campbell
2020-04-15T19:39:59Z

On 4/15/20 12:29 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:28:23AM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>>
>> On 4/15/20 7:41 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:31:05PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>>>> This series adds basic self tests for HMM and are intended for Jason
>>>> Gunthorpe's rdma tree which has a number of HMM patches applied.
>>>
>>> Here are some hunks I noticed while testing this:
>>>
>>> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
>>> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
>>> @@ -2201,7 +2201,8 @@ config TEST_MEMINIT
>>> config TEST_HMM
>>> tristate "Test HMM (Heterogeneous Memory Management)"
>>> - depends on DEVICE_PRIVATE
>>> + depends on TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>> + select DEVICE_PRIVATE
>>> select HMM_MIRROR
>>> select MMU_NOTIFIER
>>> help
>>>
>>> It fails testing if TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is not on
>>>
>>> @@ -1097,6 +1071,7 @@ static int dmirror_device_init(struct dmirror_device *mdevice, int id)
>>> spin_lock_init(&mdevice->lock);
>>> cdev_init(&mdevice->cdevice, &dmirror_fops);
>>> + mdevice->cdevice.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>>> ret = cdev_add(&mdevice->cdevice, dev, 1);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> The use of cdev without a struct device is super weird, but it still
>>> needs this
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_hmm.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_hmm.sh
>>> index 461e4a99a362cf..0647b525a62564 100755
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_hmm.sh
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_hmm.sh
>>> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ run_smoke()
>>> echo "Running smoke test. Note, this test provides basic coverage."
>>> load_driver
>>> - ./hmm-tests
>>> + $(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")/hmm-tests
>>> unload_driver
>>> }
>>>
>>> Make it runnably reliably
>>>
>>> Jason
>>
>> Thanks for the fixes. I'll apply these and send a v9.
>> I will also add missing calls to release_mem_region() to free the reserved device private
>> addresses.
>
> If you decide to ignore my request to avoid addition of special header
> file to UAPI, at least don't copy and install that file without some
> special CONFIG option (TEST_HMM ???) requested by the users. It also
> will be good to get Acked-by on this change from HMM people.
>
> However, I still think that include/uapi/linux/test_hmm.h opens
> pandora box of having UAPI files without real promise to keep it
> backward compatible.
>
> Thanks

I think that is a valid point. I would expect the test<->driver UAPI to track the kernel
version since the sources are "released" together. I suppose a version number could be
included in the request structure to handle mismatch driver and test program but that
may be overkill.
Are you suggesting that include/linux/test_hmm.h is a better location?