From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2 v4] syscalls: Add set_mempolicy numa tests.
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 02:39:22 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2092842506.4709417.1551685162547.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190228153425.10286-2-chrubis@suse.cz>
----- Original Message -----
> This is initial attempt to replace numa.sh tests that despite having
> been fixed several times have still many shortcommings that wouldn't
> easy to fix. It's not finished nor 100% replacement at this point but it
> should be pretty good start.
>
> The main selling points of these testcases are:
>
> The memory allocated for the testing is tracked exactly. We are using
> get_mempolicy() with MPOL_F_NODE | MPOL_F_ADDR that returns the node ID on
> which specified address is allocated on to count pages allocated per node
> after
> we set desired memory policy.
Hi,
>
> We also check for free memory on each numa memory mode and skip nodes
> that don't have sufficient amount of memory for a particular test. The
> tests checks usuall for twice as much memory per each node in order to
> allow for allocations to be "misplaced".
I wonder if we should add some constant to it. I have foggy idea, that
kernel keeps some reserves.
>
> The tests for file based shared interleaved mappings are no longer
> mapping a single small file but rather than that we accumulate statistic
> for larger amount of files over longer period of time and we also allow
> for small offset (currently 10%). We should probably also increase the
> number of samples we take as currently it's about 5MB in total on x86
> although I haven't managed to make this test fail so far. This also
> fixes the test on Btrfs where the synthetic test that expects the pages
> to be distributed exactly equally fails.
API looks good to me, ACK. Maybe you could split it into 2 commits, one for
new library API, and one for new tests.
Couple small comments below.
> +
> +void tst_nodemap_count_pages(struct tst_nodemap *nodes,
> + void *ptr, size_t size)
> +{
> + size_t page_size = getpagesize();
> + unsigned int i;
> + int node;
> + unsigned int pages = (size + page_size - 1)/page_size;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pages; i++) {
> + get_mempolicy(&node, NULL, 0, ptr + i * page_size, MPOL_F_NODE |
> MPOL_F_ADDR);
We should check return value from get_mempolicy here.
> +
> + if (node < 0 || (unsigned int)node >= nodes->cnt) {
> + tst_res(TWARN, "get_mempolicy(...) returned invalid node %i\n", node);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + inc_counter(node, nodes);
> + }
> +}
> +
<snip>
> +
> +static void verify_set_mempolicy(unsigned int n)
> +{
> + struct bitmask *bm = numa_allocate_nodemask();
> + unsigned int exp_alloc[nodes->cnt];
> + unsigned int alloc_per_node = n ? 8 : 2;
Can you make this "8" a define, so that "16" above can be derived from it?
> + unsigned int alloc_on_nodes = n ? 2 : nodes->cnt;
> + unsigned int alloc_total = alloc_per_node * alloc_on_nodes;
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + memset(exp_alloc, 0, sizeof(exp_alloc));
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < alloc_on_nodes; i++) {
> + exp_alloc[i] = alloc_per_node;
> + numa_bitmask_setbit(bm, nodes->map[i]);
> + }
> +
> + TEST(set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE, bm->maskp, bm->size+1));
> +
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Allocating on nodes 1-%u - %u pages",
> + alloc_on_nodes, alloc_total);
> +
> + if (TST_RET) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
> + "set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE)");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + tst_res(TPASS, "set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE)");
> +
> + numa_free_nodemask(bm);
> +
> + alloc_and_check(alloc_total, exp_alloc);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> + .setup = setup,
> + .cleanup = cleanup,
> + .test = verify_set_mempolicy,
> + .tcnt = 2,
> + .forks_child = 1,
> + .needs_checkpoints = 1,
> +};
> +
> +#else
> +
> +TST_TEST_TCONF(NUMA_ERROR_MSG);
> +
> +#endif /* HAVE_NUMA_H */
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/set_mempolicy/set_mempolicy03.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/set_mempolicy/set_mempolicy03.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..a1e7f1eb5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/set_mempolicy/set_mempolicy03.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
> +/*
> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2018 Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
> + */
> +
> +/*
> + * We are testing set_mempolicy() with MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED backed
> by a
> + * file.
Maybe extend this comment to say it's across all filesystems.
Regards,
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-04 7:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-28 15:34 [LTP] [PATCH 0/2 v4] Add mbind and set_mempolicy tests Cyril Hrubis
2019-02-28 15:34 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/2 v4] syscalls: Add set_mempolicy numa tests Cyril Hrubis
2019-03-04 7:39 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2019-03-06 15:30 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-03-06 15:38 ` Jan Stancek
2019-02-28 15:34 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] syscalls/mbind0{2,3,4}: Add basic mbind tests Cyril Hrubis
2019-06-03 14:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] syscalls/mbind0{2, 3, 4}: " Petr Vorel
2019-06-03 14:12 ` Petr Vorel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2092842506.4709417.1551685162547.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox