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 E677BECAAD2 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 00:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234159AbiIBAv3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 20:51:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42452 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232159AbiIBAv0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 20:51:26 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-x44.google.com (mail-oa1-x44.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::44]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2526B15C for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa1-x44.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-11e9a7135easo1357858fac.6 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:51:24 -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=nidOMS6ikafcmd9pBlqU3bVEl1XH1VyVGzzAC2C9Drs=; b=k3orlCEHu7ura1UozpYR299BPulolHBmOzbioaImR6n8VwGin/mSKOG1N8Orwonodu OhWT9UQrWEcP1XTKIC/kBmut2eZdvty3jmdhqBXuLM9wLYlZfvCizKwAyiKjiXbFKkt+ M1DxCpc3VU38bthL40HpvjjdOzuerW/JYmI1dHNAloHKxXv+Bshnoun+6qHTxGCXaSg8 NQ+my720nLhQOuoXCaB0PJCYju1rnzixgQHL2lZOJBeopNJfWHcf42YMUHk+DEwtya07 f3iVXD0se1ESPdrba3+hjHjMFKj2jLHVe7SExNtM3y4lR9zS9e7eCK8cSDYgwb+SSRMx oZhg== 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=nidOMS6ikafcmd9pBlqU3bVEl1XH1VyVGzzAC2C9Drs=; b=JWm/R9vgIKtPwJfC1RL7U629s1TYMYQP0CXSESQDOHYmzMIQJdSwNct/kmNX/4iUzZ 4Dht+cZjynsDNAfsVi4UAf2BY/kcd8TJg+ZLEqCKgSCBgYZzBKNhZjKGTuDPGVh1Sixo oew6xxfYTf2CEK/fN8lUiZW1vT4+y5qJyQmstkqxXQ9CnYlaKrNBJ9g2e0WjEOu9d+qq R7lZ2RdQ0UE/LOauBben0TmiN1Gk6f41uwBMPSlEiZHnCO17WWTdlfo7HrctC4fxZBE6 lvWwDKv/y2nrGckCzJx5+LRY/TDxkc+MQFxSOdAAQ7ozPon7DWh0N+a5+LCdb2vCP393 tzOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0uCLhC9CXlI/4MbXe0UQpYyeTflezEUemheNKOwmLRVdBMcmUC c0sgi11c/cjeuIWgDwWscI0Srjxwjm8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5mEG+Nc8HMuk9D7LE0x/cMbVOOBaRfwNnxoczcpbhV1BIeix4t4v4T8Te1FAcBpw9FzW8MOg== X-Received: by 2002:aca:a9d3:0:b0:347:cf89:e6a2 with SMTP id s202-20020acaa9d3000000b00347cf89e6a2mr857488oie.101.1662079883818; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sophie (static-198-54-128-70.cust.tzulo.com. [198.54.128.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o186-20020aca41c3000000b00344afa2b08bsm354439oia.26.2022.09.01.17.51.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:51:21 -0500 From: Rebecca Mckeever To: Mike Rapoport Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] memblock tests: add top-down NUMA tests for memblock_alloc_try_nid* Message-ID: <20220902005121.GC18733@sophie> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 11:59:42AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 12:53:00AM -0500, 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 32b3c1594fdd..e5ef93ea1ce5 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c > > @@ -1094,7 +1094,7 @@ 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__); > > @@ -1226,17 +1226,10 @@ 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_memblock_alloc_try_nid_name(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_memblock_alloc_try_nid_name(alloc_nid_test_flags)); > > > > alloc_try_nid_simple_check(); > > alloc_try_nid_misaligned_check(); > > @@ -1253,6 +1246,693 @@ 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; > > + > > + 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); > > + assert_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 in a specific NUMA node that > > + * does not have enough memory to allocate a region of the requested size: > > + * > > + * | +-----+ +------------------+ | > > + * | | req | | expected | | > > + * +---+-----+----------+------------------+-----+ > > + * > > + * | +---------+ | > > + * | | rgn | | > > + * +-----------------------------+---------+-----+ > > + * > > + * Expect to allocate an aligned region at the end of the last node that has > > + * enough memory (in this case, nid = 6) after falling back to NUMA_NO_NODE. > > + */ > > +static int alloc_try_nid_top_down_numa_small_node_check(void) > > +{ > > + int nid_req = 1; > > + int nid_exp = 6; > > + struct memblock_region *new_rgn = &memblock.reserved.regions[0]; > > + struct memblock_region *exp_node = &memblock.memory.regions[nid_exp]; > > AFAIU, having required and expected nodes here means very tight relation > between the NUMA layout used by setup_numa_memblock() and the test cases. > > I believe it would be clearer and less error prone if the relation were > more explicit. > I agree. > Can't say I have a great ideas how to achieve this, but maybe its worth > passing NUMA layout to setup_numa_memblock() every time, or setting the > requested and expected nid based on the NUMA layout, or maybe something > smarted than either of these. > I like the first option. I'll pass the NUMA layout if I can't think of a better idea. > > + void *allocated_ptr = NULL; > > + > > + PREFIX_PUSH(); > > + > > + phys_addr_t size; > > + phys_addr_t min_addr; > > + phys_addr_t max_addr; > > + > > + setup_numa_memblock(); > > + > > + size = SZ_2K * MEM_FACTOR; > > + 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); > > + assert_mem_content(allocated_ptr, size, alloc_nid_test_flags); > > + > > + ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->size, size); > > + ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->base, region_end(exp_node) - 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; > > +} > > + > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. Thanks, Rebecca