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 1CA73ECAAD2 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 00:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232681AbiIBAhi (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 20:37:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48448 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235127AbiIBAhN (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 20:37:13 -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 781C66717A for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa1-x43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-11eab59db71so1227240fac.11 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:37:06 -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=xM433NCCdFsj/Dus8z982guFSm6mdOX0+AhxRQOZ+mQ=; b=nBlvj7nrHPVVIGNi93HF0NaakZvzGnxIVe7It932X+c4rUd2Jj88O9cFLEMb0aFJgN i3akrSqOsEfHJ/UYxuzE79m0BXm/ppqU5PlUX0FbQOYYyxyMCE/JhHHPYNOcBigzkAK7 aX+T08h2pGs8fpER4RghbnPfpK4Mv6ojIIImZWtxMv+k2qGR4q1CUUqi7JfzefpUHI3A 6qjPoJQXj+WRHXtFQdRd9tTCHsLPoCXBkx6bGA5I8rWfPbpl32/2G6/jlBZieuAdYfjs pNoXeeBxVtMKSvnPpXbYW3tuCpAB8K8BMmqRqAF7umHaQajfdBV7l1v6H9UGn6U+Ye3w sYNw== 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=xM433NCCdFsj/Dus8z982guFSm6mdOX0+AhxRQOZ+mQ=; b=rBAe0UMCA+AX3q4UBoq8bMW2HA499kZCnfP35uQthR2INn3Rn2YTLbkHSqkSMxpW/t fysI5kmSkVAV8H9cC5qx+dSllG0HlLrcgzkdZI7mVBt1fILmkVxeepz5rr18+vjNnzhe nc1myNRD2VlJ4lwzKPe83Q8nGOwowx4O90yMBz7cTwfbi7405AeRqlm8r2uVPGsNI13A u7/OxchxPk3tDmcZC2k/5vDPfKBe+uzilzJmju0aYXpzjCKb6FeWpS6JUltW9LsfjWzu WluxDEyZ3eQa9VfeYkt4IxdI/M3+TXy29vwNQIQT8SObd7IjqeaR3qi/fTFzxMSIoNer jzCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo32bMdjoiFALggfThst22MYRhDrnTsiNeiEkvfYb1OxQKlVWSVb 8Hxbpvb8rcx/zMotP6oLZO2dqvOxAMk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4w24tn4ZIX/Y0E/iC+KDhcc4aQLCRBSznfH/pvuxzQ2STSLHaCFjI3AfDLko8i5rU4FnVbhA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:151f:b0:343:2cbe:ad68 with SMTP id u31-20020a056808151f00b003432cbead68mr867716oiw.254.1662079025189; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sophie (static-198-54-128-70.cust.tzulo.com. [198.54.128.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m8-20020a056870058800b0011d02a3fa63sm420199oap.14.2022.09.01.17.37.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:37:03 -0500 From: Rebecca Mckeever To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Mike Rapoport , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] memblock tests: add top-down NUMA tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid* Message-ID: <20220902003703.GB18733@sophie> References: <957966f06474e3885796247ad1beaa6b3841ebd1.1660897864.git.remckee0@gmail.com> <6f61b669-e89f-6615-6b80-088940221858@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6f61b669-e89f-6615-6b80-088940221858@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > --- > > 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