On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 11:59:42AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 12:53:00AM -0500, 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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 32b3c1594fdd..e5ef93ea1ce5 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > @@ -1094,7 +1094,7 @@ 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__);
> > @@ -1226,17 +1226,10 @@ 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_memblock_alloc_try_nid_name(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_memblock_alloc_try_nid_name(alloc_nid_test_flags));
> >
> > alloc_try_nid_simple_check();
> > alloc_try_nid_misaligned_check();
> > @@ -1253,6 +1246,693 @@ 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;
> > +
> > + 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);
> > + assert_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 in a specific NUMA node that
> > + * does not have enough memory to allocate a region of the requested size:
> > + *
> > + * | +-----+ +------------------+ |
> > + * | | req | | expected | |
> > + * +---+-----+----------+------------------+-----+
> > + *
> > + * | +---------+ |
> > + * | | rgn | |
> > + * +-----------------------------+---------+-----+
> > + *
> > + * Expect to allocate an aligned region at the end of the last node that has
> > + * enough memory (in this case, nid = 6) after falling back to NUMA_NO_NODE.
> > + */
> > +static int alloc_try_nid_top_down_numa_small_node_check(void)
> > +{
> > + int nid_req = 1;
> > + int nid_exp = 6;
> > + struct memblock_region *new_rgn = &memblock.reserved.regions[0];
> > + struct memblock_region *exp_node = &memblock.memory.regions[nid_exp];
>
> AFAIU, having required and expected nodes here means very tight relation
> between the NUMA layout used by setup_numa_memblock() and the test cases.
>
> I believe it would be clearer and less error prone if the relation were
> more explicit.
>
I agree.
> Can't say I have a great ideas how to achieve this, but maybe its worth
> passing NUMA layout to setup_numa_memblock() every time, or setting the
> requested and expected nid based on the NUMA layout, or maybe something
> smarted than either of these.
>
I like the first option. I'll pass the NUMA layout if I can't think of a
better idea.
> > + void *allocated_ptr = NULL;
> > +
> > + PREFIX_PUSH();
> > +
> > + phys_addr_t size;
> > + phys_addr_t min_addr;
> > + phys_addr_t max_addr;
> > +
> > + setup_numa_memblock();
> > +
> > + size = SZ_2K * MEM_FACTOR;
> > + 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);
> > + assert_mem_content(allocated_ptr, size, alloc_nid_test_flags);
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->size, size);
> > + ASSERT_EQ(new_rgn->base, region_end(exp_node) - 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;
> > +}
> > +
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
Thanks,
Rebecca
