| 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: <20220902003703.GB18733@sophie>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:37:03 -0500
From: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: 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 Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:56:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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.
>
Got it.
> > +
> > + 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 :)
>
Yeah, it seems that memblock avoids allocations that would overlap with
more than one node. Do you think I should explain that in the comment?
> [...]
>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * 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() ?
>
No, it doesn't apply. Thanks for catching this. I should probably add
another patch to update the wording in the pre-existing tests too.
> > + * 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
>
Got it.
> > + 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
>
>
Thanks,
Rebecca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists