linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory with multiple NUMA nodes

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Yw96SgMopn3SrWS7@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:12:10 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] memblock tests: add simulation of physical memory
 with multiple NUMA nodes

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:49:09PM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:17:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.08.22 11:05, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > Add functions setup_numa_memblock_generic() and setup_numa_memblock()
> > > for setting up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously
> > > allocated dummy physical memory. These functions can be used in place of
> > > setup_memblock() in tests that need to simulate a NUMA system.
> > > 
> > > setup_numa_memblock_generic():
> > > - allows for setting up a custom memory layout by specifying the amount
> > >   of memory in each node, the number of nodes, and a factor that will be
> > >   used to scale the memory in each node
> > > 
> > > setup_numa_memblock():
> > > - allows for setting up a default memory layout
> > > 
> > > Introduce constant MEM_FACTOR, which is used to scale the default memory
> > > layout based on MEM_SIZE.
> > > 
> > > Set CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 4 when building with NUMA=1 to allow for up to
> > > 16 NUMA nodes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include |  2 +-
> > >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h         |  9 ++++-
> > >  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > index aa6d82d56a23..998281723590 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/scripts/Makefile.include
> > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  # Simulate CONFIG_NUMA=y
> > >  ifeq ($(NUMA), 1)
> > > -	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA
> > > +	CFLAGS += -D CONFIG_NUMA -D CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=4
> > >  endif
> > >  
> > >  # Use 32 bit physical addresses.
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > index eec6901081af..15d8767dc70c 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
> > > @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static const char * const help_opts[] = {
> > >  
> > >  static int verbose;
> > >  
> > > +static const phys_addr_t node_sizes[] = {
> > > +	SZ_4K, SZ_1K, SZ_2K, SZ_2K, SZ_1K, SZ_1K, SZ_4K, SZ_1K
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  /* sets global variable returned by movable_node_is_enabled() stub */
> > >  bool movable_node_enabled;
> > >  
> > > @@ -72,6 +76,40 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
> > >  	fill_memblock();
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +/**
> > > + * setup_numa_memblock_generic:
> > > + * Set up a memory layout with multiple NUMA nodes in a previously allocated
> > > + * dummy physical memory.
> > > + * @nodes: an array containing the amount of memory in each node
> > > + * @node_cnt: the size of @nodes
> > > + * @factor: a factor that will be used to scale the memory in each node
> > > + *
> > > + * The nids will be set to 0 through node_cnt - 1.
> > > + */
> > > +void setup_numa_memblock_generic(const phys_addr_t nodes[],
> > > +				 int node_cnt, int factor)
> > > +{
> > > +	phys_addr_t base;
> > > +	int flags;
> > > +
> > > +	reset_memblock_regions();
> > > +	base = (phys_addr_t)memory_block.base;
> > > +	flags = (movable_node_is_enabled()) ? MEMBLOCK_NONE : MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG;
> > > +
> > > +	for (int i = 0; i < node_cnt; i++) {
> > > +		phys_addr_t size = factor * nodes[i];
> > 
> > I'm a bit lost why we need the factor if we already provide sizes in the
> > array.
> > 
> > Can you enlighten me? :)
> > 
> > Why can't we just stick to the sizes in the array?
> > 
> Without the factor, some of the tests will break if we increase MEM_SIZE
> in the future (which we may need to do). I could rewrite them so that the
> factor is not needed, but I thought the code would be over-complicated if
> I did.

What if we make nodes[] to represent the fraction of the memory rather than
a node size? Then the factor won't be required.

> Thanks,
> Rebecca

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.