On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:51:14AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:55:31PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:19:42PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 12:45:27AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> After previous change, we may double the array based on the position of
>> >> the new range.
>> >>
>> >> Let's make sure the 129th memory block would double the size correctly
>> >> at all possible position.
>> >
>> >Rather than rewrite an existing test, just add a new one.
>>
>> Ok, will add a new one for this.
>>
>> >Besides, it would be more interesting to test additions to
>> >memblock.reserved and a mix of memblock_add() and memblock_reserve() that
>> >will require resizing the memblock arrays.
>>
>> I don't get this very clearly. Would you mind give more hint?
>
>There is memblock_reserve_many_check() that verifies that memblock.reserved
>is properly resized. I think it's better to add test that adds 129th block
>at multiple locations to memblock.reserved.
>
I come up with another version, which could address the bug fixed by commit
48c3b583bbdd ("mm/memblock: fix overlapping allocation when doubling reserved
array").
Comment out the fix, the test failed since cnt mismatch after double array.
Not sure you prefer to have both or just leave this version by replacing
current memblock_reserve_many_check().
diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
index d2b8114921f9..fb76471108b2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
+++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
@@ -1006,6 +1006,119 @@ static int memblock_reserve_many_check(void)
return 0;
}
+/* Keep the gap so these memory region will not be merged. */
+#define MEMORY_BASE_OFFSET(idx, offset) ((offset) + (MEM_SIZE * 2) * (idx))
+static int memblock_reserve_many_conflict_check(void)
+{
+ int i, skip;
+ void *orig_region;
+ struct region r = {
+ .base = SZ_16K,
+ .size = SZ_16K,
+ };
+ phys_addr_t new_reserved_regions_size;
+
+ /*
+ * 0 1 129
+ * +---+ +---+ +---+
+ * |32K| |32K| .. |32K|
+ * +---+ +---+ +---+
+ *
+ * Pre-allocate the range for 129 memory block + one range for double
+ * memblock.reserved.regions at idx 0.
+ * See commit 48c3b583bbdd ("mm/memblock: fix overlapping allocation
+ * when doubling reserved array")
+ */
+ phys_addr_t memory_base = (phys_addr_t)malloc(130 * (2 * SZ_32K));
+ phys_addr_t offset = PAGE_ALIGN(memory_base);
+
+ PREFIX_PUSH();
+
+ /* Reserve the 129th memory block for all possible positions*/
+ for (skip = 1; skip <= INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1; skip++)
+ {
+ reset_memblock_regions();
+ memblock_allow_resize();
+
+ reset_memblock_attributes();
+ /* Add a valid memory region used by double_array(). */
+ memblock_add(MEMORY_BASE_OFFSET(0, offset), MEM_SIZE);
+ /*
+ * Add a memory region which will be reserved as 129th memory
+ * region. This is not expected to be used by double_array().
+ */
+ memblock_add(MEMORY_BASE_OFFSET(skip, offset), MEM_SIZE);
+
+ for (i = 1; i <= INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1; i++) {
+ if (i == skip)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Reserve some fakes memory region to fulfill the memblock. */
+ memblock_reserve(MEMORY_BASE_OFFSET(i, offset), MEM_SIZE);
+
+ if (i < skip) {
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, i);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, i * MEM_SIZE);
+ } else {
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, i - 1);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, (i - 1) * MEM_SIZE);
+ }
+ }
+
+ orig_region = memblock.reserved.regions;
+
+ /* This reserve the 129 memory_region, and makes it double array. */
+ memblock_reserve(MEMORY_BASE_OFFSET(skip, offset), MEM_SIZE);
+
+ /*
+ * This is the memory region size used by the doubled reserved.regions,
+ * and it has been reserved due to it has been used. The size is used to
+ * calculate the total_size that the memblock.reserved have now.
+ */
+ new_reserved_regions_size = PAGE_ALIGN((INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2) *
+ sizeof(struct memblock_region));
+ /*
+ * The double_array() will find a free memory region as the new
+ * reserved.regions, and the used memory region will be reserved, so
+ * there will be one more region exist in the reserved memblock. And the
+ * one more reserved region's size is new_reserved_regions_size.
+ */
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 2);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1) * MEM_SIZE +
+ new_reserved_regions_size);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.max, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2);
+
+ /*
+ * Now memblock_double_array() works fine. Let's check after the
+ * double_array(), the memblock_reserve() still works as normal.
+ */
+ memblock_reserve(r.base, r.size);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.regions[0].base, r.base);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.regions[0].size, r.size);
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 3);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.total_size, (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1) * MEM_SIZE +
+ new_reserved_regions_size +
+ r.size);
+ ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.max, INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2);
+
+ /*
+ * The current reserved.regions is occupying a range of memory that
+ * allocated from dummy_physical_memory_init(). After free the memory,
+ * we must not use it. So restore the origin memory region to make sure
+ * the tests can run as normal and not affected by the double array.
+ */
+ memblock.reserved.regions = orig_region;
+ memblock.reserved.cnt = INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS;
+ }
+
+ free((void *)memory_base);
+
+ test_pass_pop();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int memblock_reserve_checks(void)
{
prefix_reset();
@@ -1021,6 +1134,7 @@ static int memblock_reserve_checks(void)
memblock_reserve_between_check();
memblock_reserve_near_max_check();
memblock_reserve_many_check();
+ memblock_reserve_many_conflict_check();
prefix_pop();
--
2.34.1
>> --
>> Wei Yang
>> Help you, Help me
>
>--
>Sincerely yours,
>Mike.
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
