On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:58 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2024/8/1 2:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 5:50 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Basing on the lib/objpool.c, change it to something like a
> >> ptrpool, so that we can utilize that to test the correctness
> >> and performance of the page_frag.
> >>
> >> The testing is done by ensuring that the fragment allocated
> >> from a frag_frag_cache instance is pushed into a ptrpool
> >> instance in a kthread binded to a specified cpu, and a kthread
> >> binded to a specified cpu will pop the fragment from the
> >> ptrpool and free the fragment.
> >>
> >> We may refactor out the common part between objpool and ptrpool
> >> if this ptrpool thing turns out to be helpful for other place.
> >
> > This isn't a patch where you should be introducing stuff you hope to
> > refactor out and reuse later. Your objpoo/ptrpool stuff is just going
> > to add bloat and overhead as you are going to have to do pointer
> > changes to get them in and out of memory and you are having to scan
> > per-cpu lists. You would be better served using a simple array as your
> > threads should be stick to a consistent CPU anyway in terms of
> > testing.
> >
> > I would suggest keeping this much more simple. Trying to pattern this
> > after something like the dmapool_test code would be a better way to go
> > for this. We don't need all this extra objpool overhead getting in the
> > way of testing the code you should be focused on. Just allocate your
> > array on one specific CPU and start placing and removing your pages
> > from there instead of messing with the push/pop semantics.
>
> I am not sure if I understand what you meant here, do you meant something
> like dmapool_test_alloc() does as something like below?
>
> static int page_frag_test_alloc(void **p, int blocks)
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < blocks; i++) {
> p[i] = page_frag_alloc(&test_frag, test_alloc_len, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> if (!p[i])
> goto pool_fail;
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < blocks; i++)
> page_frag_free(p[i]);
>
> ....
> }
>
> The above was my initial thinking too, I went to the ptrpool thing using
> at least two CPUs as the below reason:
> 1. Test the concurrent calling between allocing and freeing more throughly,
> for example, page->_refcount concurrent handling, cache draining and
> cache reusing code path will be tested more throughly.
> 2. Test the performance impact of cache bouncing between different CPUs.
>
> I am not sure if there is a more lightweight implementation than ptrpool
> to do the above testing more throughly.
You can still do that with a single producer single consumer ring
buffer/array and not have to introduce a ton of extra overhead for
some push/pop approach. There are a number of different
implementations for such things throughout the kernel.
>
> >
> > Lastly something that is a module only tester that always fails to
> > probe doesn't sound like it really makes sense as a standard kernel
>
> I had the same feeling as you, but when doing testing, it seems
> convenient enough to do a 'insmod xxx.ko' for testing without a
> 'rmmod xxx.ko'
It means this isn't a viable module though. If it supports insmod to
trigger your tests you should let it succeed, and then do a rmmod to
remove it afterwards. Otherwise it is a test module and belongs in the
selftest block.
> > module. I still think it would make more sense to move it to the
> > selftests tree and just have it build there as a module instead of
>
> I failed to find one example of test kernel module that is in the
> selftests tree yet. If it does make sense, please provide an example
> here, and I am willing to follow the pattern if there is one.
You must not have been looking very hard. A quick grep for
"module_init" in the selftest folder comes up with
"tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/" containing an example of a
module built in the selftests folder.
> > trying to force it into the mm tree. The example of dmapool_test makes
> > sense as it could be run at early boot to run the test and then it
>
> I suppose you meant dmapool is built-in to the kernel and run at early
> boot? I am not sure what is the point of built-in for dmapool, as it
> only do one-time testing, and built-in for dmapool only waste some
> memory when testing is done.
There are cases where one might want to test on a system w/o console
access such as an embedded system, or in the case of an environment
where people run without an initrd at all.
> > just goes quiet. This module won't load and will always just return
> > -EAGAIN which doesn't sound like a valid kernel module to me.
>
> As above, it seems convenient enough to do a 'insmod xxx.ko' for testing
> without a 'rmmod xxx.ko'.
It is, but it isn't. The problem is it creates a bunch of ugliness in
the build as you are a tristate that isn't a tristate as you are only
building it if it is set to "m". There isn't anything like that
currently in the mm tree.
