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 5B3D9ECAAD3 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 00:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234496AbiIBAIl (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 20:08:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59700 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234064AbiIBAIc (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 20:08:32 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-x43.google.com (mail-oa1-x43.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C687F1120 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa1-x43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-11edd61a9edso1196640fac.5 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=cd8UXaLR0IicU4AOk7UKJgay4GHu8DwVdf9UBh0pUjw=; b=VLY2dHKFKuStaRf/vcdP3v7LBWyLM8VbbuIYYXLg53mzURdKtBlgcFRhC9Gn4tzPTD nxovJiu6z8JZ5IcWYUF4e5OinMpZnxVmDLtQKtL+WDBrMjJPtNzbRAVZZqBm0krZJy2d 3COZLiG+ApTGino+6KM8VXfMN0OH0y8HH4pYP/4iHUyPLgBQJnQpnSxsRB+lzYR5aWHP CkJH16U+amfBINLvq1mDGyroLmX55kfJoOBsFOVnIuGGqwyf8EHQQQOcvkmt55ZE30zM M9lerPvWV+cO7Pu4ihplIWrQ+44v+OGe79rlQh1aPgj7gb8lebgxbjRNxEkN+nsUNQEt W6ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; 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; bh=cd8UXaLR0IicU4AOk7UKJgay4GHu8DwVdf9UBh0pUjw=; b=4/bsdtduXOCMRLMFbUZWJR1Ex0wLJFRArDL1N2N/yu5kr83skVCmRD/CeRTpX7iXYB Bnom6ga4Rqvy18T+vj3ztlQ6KfQlpkZoDtSgJ8r9fQXiIg3qikRSeA7vMePmJRNpwJGP MqqY3GHv+TbB3VCgACH9R1iCFbvdW56AZQBLk+KsSJuRFrcLmN9snsq1DIfCVWU4XKLf ii3IimEXaLKz1V2uDXJuZg1uw8T7jWQVOPSmhtSZ6cq2Yw4al/ACLCAGlOfeCLas3i6i bOIcnrnuOxNlVWsmzvbphVW25U8kIQeSTiopJqj/1+7nyhaSwvLWi/9wFXvUqf1unyMc RL+A== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3+ZOY2YEQmItN4dKD9SAktDzUr/bLt+Mxo8s8sbZcZlt8HvKup KnYYO9fQ52N0iOzVBtS3xAK6799lyvE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR73nHNG1fLa3SjmOoM1nkt+XEbOuHf17niOI92pG+PiGn3TIPZFWorZGTTuVm5JcUa5REj5zg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:8984:b0:10d:d981:151f with SMTP id f4-20020a056870898400b0010dd981151fmr895003oaq.212.1662077310915; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sophie (static-198-54-128-70.cust.tzulo.com. [198.54.128.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r22-20020a4abf16000000b0044ae10c5974sm170816oop.34.2022.09.01.17.08.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:08:28 -0500 From: Rebecca Mckeever To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Mike Rapoport , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes Message-ID: <20220902000828.GB17689@sophie> References: <0cfb3c69ba6ca9ff55e1fc2528d18d108416ba57.1660897864.git.remckee0@gmail.com> <329ab669-620c-ba9e-3c57-9cb90d55b942@redhat.com> <20220831034909.GA16092@sophie> <7c83950c-6a83-e35b-0060-79b5df3bda56@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7c83950c-6a83-e35b-0060-79b5df3bda56@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > >>> --- > >>> .../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