[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a6f7ff80-ea77-75d0-2454-99d14f164708@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:16:18 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Charan Teja Reddy <charante@...eaurora.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@...linux.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, zhangyi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] userfaultfd: selftests: modify selftest to use
/dev/userfaultfd
On 4/22/22 3:29 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> We clearly want to ensure both userfaultfd(2) and /dev/userfaultfd keep
> working into the future, so just run the test twice, using each
> interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> index 92a4516f8f0d..12ae742a9981 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ static int bounces;
> #define TEST_SHMEM 3
> static int test_type;
>
> +/* test using /dev/userfaultfd, instead of userfaultfd(2) */
> +static bool test_dev_userfaultfd;
> +
> /* exercise the test_uffdio_*_eexist every ALARM_INTERVAL_SECS */
> #define ALARM_INTERVAL_SECS 10
> static volatile bool test_uffdio_copy_eexist = true;
> @@ -383,13 +386,31 @@ static void assert_expected_ioctls_present(uint64_t mode, uint64_t ioctls)
> }
> }
>
> +static void __userfaultfd_open_dev(void)
> +{
> + int fd;
> +
> + uffd = -1;
> + fd = open("/dev/userfaultfd", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
> + if (fd < 0)
> + return;
> +
> + uffd = ioctl(fd, USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW,
> + O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY);
> + close(fd);
> +}
> +
> static void userfaultfd_open(uint64_t *features)
> {
> struct uffdio_api uffdio_api;
>
> - uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY);
> + if (test_dev_userfaultfd)
> + __userfaultfd_open_dev();
> + else
> + uffd = syscall(__NR_userfaultfd,
> + O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK | UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY);
> if (uffd < 0)
> - err("userfaultfd syscall not available in this kernel");
> + err("creating userfaultfd failed");
This isn't an error as in test failure. This will be a skip because of
unmet dependencies. Also if this test requires root access, please check
for that and make that a skip as well.
> uffd_flags = fcntl(uffd, F_GETFD, NULL);
>
> uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
> @@ -1698,6 +1719,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> }
> printf("nr_pages: %lu, nr_pages_per_cpu: %lu\n",
> nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu);
> +
> + test_dev_userfaultfd = false;
> + if (userfaultfd_stress())
> + return 1;
> +
> + test_dev_userfaultfd = true;
> return userfaultfd_stress();
> }
>
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists