Message-ID: <59E5EAA5.7000608@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:33:57 +0800
From:   Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:     <catalin.marinas@....com>, <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <punit.agrawal@....com>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [bug report & help] arm64: ltp testcase "migrate_pages01" failed

On 2017/10/17 17:23, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:58:53AM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this is the problem on arm64 numa. What do you think ?
>> By the way, this testcase can be successful in any case on x86.
> 
> To be honest, this isn't a particularly helpful bug report. I appreciate
> that a test is reporting failure, but it doesn't look like you've spent
> very much effort to understand what the test is trying to do and why it
> thinks it's failed to do it. All I can sensibly do with your bug report
> is run the test myself, and it passes on the systems I have available.
> 
> So, you need to:
> 
> 1. Understand what the test is doing.
> 2. Figure out which bit isn't doing what it's supposed to
> 3. See if that part can be isolated to trigger the problem
> 
> At that point, it should be possible to describe the unexpected behaviour
> at a level which we can actually investigate if necessary.
> 
> Will
> 

OK. I will do these things. And can you tell me the model of your test board?
If possible, run "numactl -H" to make sure all nodes have memory.

Thanks.
Xiaojun.

>> On 2017/10/16 19:42, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I test ltp in Hisilicon D05 board and get a failed result about the testcase "migrate_pages01".
>>>
>>> In fact, The sub testcase "test_invalid_nodes" failed. The testcase is to find a invalid numa node and migrate memory pages to this node via syscall of "migrate_pages".
>>> The expected result of this case is returning "-1", but it actually return "0".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> # ./migrate_pages01
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_empty_mask
>>> migrate_pages01    1  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = 0
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_pid -1
>>> migrate_pages01    2  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01    3  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=ESRCH(3): No such process
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_pid unused pid
>>> migrate_pages01    4  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01    5  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=ESRCH(3): No such process
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_masksize
>>> migrate_pages01    6  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01    7  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=EINVAL(22): Invalid argument
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_mem -1
>>> migrate_pages01    8  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01    9  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=EFAULT(14): Bad address
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_mem invalid prot
>>> migrate_pages01   10  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01   11  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=EFAULT(14): Bad address
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_mem unmmaped
>>> migrate_pages01   12  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01   13  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=EFAULT(14): Bad address
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_nodes
>>> migrate_pages01   14  TFAIL  :  migrate_pages_common.c:45: unexpected failure - returned value = 0, expected: -1
>>> migrate_pages01   15  TFAIL  :  migrate_pages_common.c:55: call succeeded unexpectedly
>>> migrate_pages01    0  TINFO  :  test_invalid_perm
>>> migrate_pages01   16  TPASS  :  expected ret success: returned value = -1
>>> migrate_pages01   17  TPASS  :  expected failure: TEST_ERRNO=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I debug and find a interesting thing, this case does not always fail.
>>>
>>> 1) If one or several numa nodes have no memory, this case will run successfully like below:
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>> available: 4 nodes (0-3)
>>> node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
>>> node 0 size: 65309 MB
>>> node 0 free: 61650 MB
>>> node 1 cpus: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
>>> node 1 size: 65404 MB
>>> node 1 free: 61377 MB
>>> node 2 cpus: 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
>>> node 2 size: 65401 MB
>>> node 2 free: 62316 MB
>>> node 3 cpus: 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
>>> node 3 size: 0 MB
>>> node 3 free: 0 MB
>>> node distances:
>>> node   0   1   2   3
>>>   0:  10  15  20  20
>>>   1:  15  10  20  20
>>>   2:  20  20  10  15
>>>   3:  20  20  15  10
>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> This testcase will find node number 3 and migrate pages to node 3. And syscall of "migrate_pages" return -1, test succeeded.
>>>
>>> 2) In most cases, all nodes have memory, and the testcase will get non-existent node like node number 4. The syscall of "migrate_pages" should also return -1, but return 0 actually.
>>> So the testcase failed.
>>>
>>> I think it is a problem in arm64. But I am not familiar with numa, so I ask for help from you.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Xiaojun.
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> .
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists