> 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:
>
> @@ -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));
Interestingly, node_distance() is an arch-specific function. Generic
implementation is quite useless:
#define node_distance(from,to) ((from) == (to) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE)
Particularly, arm64 takes the above. With node_distance() implemented
like that, we can barely test something...
Taking that into the account, I think it's better to test iterator against
cpumask_local_spread(), like in v2. I'll add a comment about that in v3.
> +
> + expect_ge_uint(dist, prev_dist);
> + prev_dist = dist;
> + }
> +
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> }
