[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf3c237e-69c8-dd6e-26fc-fe19de910813@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:56:52 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/9] selftests/mm: Skip soft-dirty tests on arm64
On 13.07.23 15:54, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> arm64 does not support the soft-dirty PTE bit. However there are tests
> in `madv_populate` and `soft-dirty` which assume it is supported and
> cause spurious failures to be reported when preferred behaviour would be
> to mark the tests as skipped.
>
> Unfortunately, the only way to determine if the soft-dirty dirty bit is
> supported is to write to a page, then see if the bit is set in
> /proc/self/pagemap. But the tests that we want to conditionally execute
> are testing precicesly this. So if we introduced this feature check, we
> could accedentally turn a real failure (on a system that claims to
> support soft-dirty) into a skip.
>
> So instead, do the check based on architecture; for arm64, we report
> that soft-dirty is not supported. This is wrapped up into a utility
> function `system_has_softdirty()`, which is used to skip the whole
> `soft-dirty` suite, and mark the soft-dirty tests in the `madv_populate`
> suite as skipped.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c | 3 +++
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c
> index 60547245e479..5a8c176d7fec 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c
> @@ -232,6 +232,14 @@ static bool range_is_not_softdirty(char *start, ssize_t size)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +#define ksft_test_result_if_softdirty(cond, ...) \
> +do { \
> + if (system_has_softdirty()) \
> + ksft_test_result(cond, __VA_ARGS__); \
> + else \
> + ksft_test_result_skip(__VA_ARGS__); \
> +} while (0)
> +
> static void test_softdirty(void)
> {
> char *addr;
> @@ -246,19 +254,19 @@ static void test_softdirty(void)
>
> /* Clear any softdirty bits. */
> clear_softdirty();
> - ksft_test_result(range_is_not_softdirty(addr, SIZE),
> + ksft_test_result_if_softdirty(range_is_not_softdirty(addr, SIZE),
> "range is not softdirty\n");
>
> /* Populating READ should set softdirty. */
> ret = madvise(addr, SIZE, MADV_POPULATE_READ);
> - ksft_test_result(!ret, "MADV_POPULATE_READ\n");
> - ksft_test_result(range_is_not_softdirty(addr, SIZE),
> + ksft_test_result_if_softdirty(!ret, "MADV_POPULATE_READ\n");
> + ksft_test_result_if_softdirty(range_is_not_softdirty(addr, SIZE),
> "range is not softdirty\n");
>
> /* Populating WRITE should set softdirty. */
> ret = madvise(addr, SIZE, MADV_POPULATE_WRITE);
> - ksft_test_result(!ret, "MADV_POPULATE_WRITE\n");
> - ksft_test_result(range_is_softdirty(addr, SIZE),
> + ksft_test_result_if_softdirty(!ret, "MADV_POPULATE_WRITE\n");
> + ksft_test_result_if_softdirty(range_is_softdirty(addr, SIZE),
> "range is softdirty\n");
We probably want to skip the whole test_*softdirty* test instead of
adding this (IMHO suboptimal) ksft_test_result_if_softdirty.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists