| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6f61b669-e89f-6615-6b80-088940221858@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:56:00 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] memblock tests: add top-down NUMA tests for
memblock_alloc_try_nid*
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 <remckee0@...il.com>
> ---
> 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.
> +
> + 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 :)
[...]
> +
> +/*
> + * 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() ?
> + * 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
> + 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists