| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:17:25 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] lib: add test for for_each_numa_{cpu,hop_mask}()
On 25/04/23 22:50, Yury Norov wrote:
> Hi Valentin,
>
> Thanks for review!
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 19/04/23 22:19, Yury Norov wrote:
>> > + for (node = 0; node < sched_domains_numa_levels; node++) {
>> > + unsigned int hop, c = 0;
>> > +
>> > + rcu_read_lock();
>> > + for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask)
>> > + expect_eq_uint(cpumask_local_spread(c++, node), cpu);
>> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>> > + }
>>
>> I'm not fond of the export of sched_domains_numa_levels, especially
>> considering it's just there for tests.
>>
>> Furthermore, is there any value is testing parity with
>> cpumask_local_spread()?
>
> I wanted to emphasize that new NUMA-aware functions are coherent with
> each other, just like find_nth_bit() is coherent with find_next_bit().
>
> But all that coherence looks important only in non-NUMA case, because
> client code may depend on fact that next CPU is never less than current.
> This doesn't hold for NUMA iterators anyways...
>
Ah right, I see your point. But yes, distance-ordered walks break this
assumption.
>> Rather, shouldn't we check that using this API does
>> yield CPUs of increasing NUMA distance?
>>
>> Something like
>>
>> for_each_node(node) {
>> unsigned int prev_cpu, hop = 0;
>>
>> cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
>> prev_cpu = cpu;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>>
>> /* Assert distance is monotonically increasing */
>> for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask) {
>> expect_ge_uint(cpu_to_node(cpu), cpu_to_node(prev_cpu));
>> prev_cpu = cpu;
>> }
>>
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> }
>
> Your version of the test looks more straightforward. I need to think
> for more, but it looks like I can take it in v3.
>
I realized I only wrote half the relevant code - comparing node IDs is
meaningless, I meant to compare distances as we walk through the
CPUs... I tested the below against a few NUMA topologies and it seems to be
sane:
diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
index 6becb044a66f0..8f8512d139d58 100644
--- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
+++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
@@ -174,11 +174,23 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
return eq;
}
-#define __expect_eq(suffix, ...) \
+static bool __init
+__check_ge_uint(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
+ const unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
+{
+ if (a < b) {
+ pr_err("[%s:%u] expected a(%u) >= b(%u)\n",
+ srcfile, line, a, b);
+ return false;
+ }
+ return true;
+}
+
+#define __expect_op(op, suffix, ...) \
({ \
int result = 0; \
total_tests++; \
- if (!__check_eq_ ## suffix(__FILE__, __LINE__, \
+ if (!__check_## op ## _ ## suffix(__FILE__, __LINE__, \
##__VA_ARGS__)) { \
failed_tests++; \
result = 1; \
@@ -186,6 +198,9 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
result; \
})
+#define __expect_eq(suffix, ...) __expect_op(eq, suffix, ##__VA_ARGS__)
+#define __expect_ge(suffix, ...) __expect_op(ge, suffix, ##__VA_ARGS__)
+
#define expect_eq_uint(...) __expect_eq(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define expect_eq_bitmap(...) __expect_eq(bitmap, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define expect_eq_pbl(...) __expect_eq(pbl, ##__VA_ARGS__)
@@ -193,6 +208,8 @@ __check_eq_str(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
#define expect_eq_clump8(...) __expect_eq(clump8, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define expect_eq_str(...) __expect_eq(str, ##__VA_ARGS__)
+#define expect_ge_uint(...) __expect_ge(uint, ##__VA_ARGS__)
+
static void __init test_zero_clear(void)
{
DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024);
@@ -756,12 +773,23 @@ static void __init test_for_each_numa(void)
{
unsigned int cpu, node;
- for (node = 0; node < sched_domains_numa_levels; node++) {
- unsigned int hop, c = 0;
+ for_each_node(node) {
+ unsigned int start_cpu, prev_dist, hop = 0;
+
+ cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
+ prev_dist = node_distance(node, node);
+ start_cpu = cpu;
rcu_read_lock();
- for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask)
- expect_eq_uint(cpumask_local_spread(c++, node), cpu);
+
+ /* Assert distance is monotonically increasing */
+ for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask) {
+ unsigned int dist = node_distance(cpu_to_node(cpu), cpu_to_node(start_cpu));
+
+ expect_ge_uint(dist, prev_dist);
+ prev_dist = dist;
+ }
+
rcu_read_unlock();
}
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists