diff mbox series

[2/8] selftests/vm: use a common gup_test.h

Message ID 20200928062159.923212-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com
State New
Headers show
Series selftests/vm: gup_test, hmm-tests, assorted improvements | expand

Commit Message

John Hubbard Sept. 28, 2020, 6:21 a.m. UTC
Avoid the need to copy-paste the gup_test ioctl commands and the struct
gup_test definition, between the kernel and the user space application,
by providing a new header file for these. This allows easier and safer
adding of new ioctl calls, as well as reducing the overall line count.

Details: The header file has to be able to compile independently,
because of the arguably unfortunate way that the Makefile is written:
the Makefile tries to build all of its prerequisites, when really it
should be only building the .c files, and leaving the other
prerequisites (LOCAL_HDRS) as pure dependencies.

That Makefile limitation is probably not worth fixing, but it explains
why one of the includes had to be moved into the new header file.

Also: simplify the ioctl struct (struct gup_test), by deleting the
unused __expansion[10] field. This sort of thing is what you might see
in a stable ABI, but this low-level, kernel-developer-oriented
selftests/vm system is very much not subject to ABI stability. So
"expansion" and "reserved" fields are unnecessary here.

Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
---
 mm/gup_test.c                         | 17 +----------------
 mm/gup_test.h                         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile   |  2 ++
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c | 22 +---------------------
 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 mm/gup_test.h

Comments

Jason Gunthorpe Sept. 28, 2020, 12:57 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> index d1ae706d9927..9cc6bc087461 100644
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> @@ -130,3 +130,5 @@ endif
>  $(OUTPUT)/userfaultfd: LDLIBS += -lpthread
>  
>  $(OUTPUT)/mlock-random-test: LDLIBS += -lcap
> +
> +$(OUTPUT)/gup_test: ../../../../mm/gup_test.h

There is no reason to do this, the auto depends will pick up header
files, and gup_test.h isn't a generated file

Jason
John Hubbard Sept. 28, 2020, 8:10 p.m. UTC | #2
On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> index d1ae706d9927..9cc6bc087461 100644
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> @@ -130,3 +130,5 @@ endif
>>   $(OUTPUT)/userfaultfd: LDLIBS += -lpthread
>>   
>>   $(OUTPUT)/mlock-random-test: LDLIBS += -lcap
>> +
>> +$(OUTPUT)/gup_test: ../../../../mm/gup_test.h
> 
> There is no reason to do this, the auto depends will pick up header
> files, and gup_test.h isn't a generated file
> 

It is less capable than you might think. Without the admittedly ugly technique
above, it fails to build, and as you can see, the include paths that are fed to
gcc are just a single one: usr/include:

$ make
make --no-builtin-rules ARCH=x86 -C ../../../.. headers_install
gcc -Wall -I ../../../../usr/include     gup_test.c 
/kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h 
/kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h ../../../../mm/gup_test.h -lrt -o 
/kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test
make[1]: Entering directory '/kernel_work/linux-next-github'
gup_test.c:10:10: fatal error: gup_test.h: No such file or directory
    10 | #include "gup_test.h"
       |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~


thanks,
Jason Gunthorpe Sept. 29, 2020, 4:35 p.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> > > index d1ae706d9927..9cc6bc087461 100644
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> > > @@ -130,3 +130,5 @@ endif
> > >   $(OUTPUT)/userfaultfd: LDLIBS += -lpthread
> > >   $(OUTPUT)/mlock-random-test: LDLIBS += -lcap
> > > +
> > > +$(OUTPUT)/gup_test: ../../../../mm/gup_test.h
> > 
> > There is no reason to do this, the auto depends will pick up header
> > files, and gup_test.h isn't a generated file
> > 
> 
> It is less capable than you might think. Without the admittedly ugly technique
> above, it fails to build, and as you can see, the include paths that are fed to
> gcc are just a single one: usr/include:
> 
> $ make
> make --no-builtin-rules ARCH=x86 -C ../../../.. headers_install
> gcc -Wall -I ../../../../usr/include     gup_test.c
> /kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> /kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
> ../../../../mm/gup_test.h -lrt -o
> /kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test
> make[1]: Entering directory '/kernel_work/linux-next-github'
> gup_test.c:10:10: fatal error: gup_test.h: No such file or directory
>    10 | #include "gup_test.h"
>       |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~

You are supposed to use

  #include "../../../../mm/gup_test.h"

I have no idea what weird behavior the makefile is triggering that the
above include works

Jason
John Hubbard Sept. 29, 2020, 5:44 p.m. UTC | #4
On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>>>> index d1ae706d9927..9cc6bc087461 100644
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>>>> @@ -130,3 +130,5 @@ endif
>>>>    $(OUTPUT)/userfaultfd: LDLIBS += -lpthread
>>>>    $(OUTPUT)/mlock-random-test: LDLIBS += -lcap
>>>> +
>>>> +$(OUTPUT)/gup_test: ../../../../mm/gup_test.h
>>>
>>> There is no reason to do this, the auto depends will pick up header
>>> files, and gup_test.h isn't a generated file
>>>

Oh, I misread your comment! You were talking about this Makefile
dependency that I'm adding, rather than the ../'s in the path.

Well, for that though, it also has to stay as shown in this patch,
because of this:

I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
in this relatively simple Make system. And so, without including an
explicit header file dependency (at least, that's the simplest way),
changes to gup_test.h are not detected. Both the Makefile code and the
observed behavior back this up. (I expect that this is because there is
less use of header files in this area, because most unit tests are
self-contained within a single .c file.)


>>
>> It is less capable than you might think. Without the admittedly ugly technique
>> above, it fails to build, and as you can see, the include paths that are fed to
>> gcc are just a single one: usr/include:
>>
>> $ make
>> make --no-builtin-rules ARCH=x86 -C ../../../.. headers_install
>> gcc -Wall -I ../../../../usr/include     gup_test.c
>> /kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
>> /kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> ../../../../mm/gup_test.h -lrt -o
>> /kernel_work/linux-next-github/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test
>> make[1]: Entering directory '/kernel_work/linux-next-github'
>> gup_test.c:10:10: fatal error: gup_test.h: No such file or directory
>>     10 | #include "gup_test.h"
>>        |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> You are supposed to use
> 
>    #include "../../../../mm/gup_test.h"

Good, I'll leave it as I had it.


> I have no idea what weird behavior the makefile is triggering that the
> above include works
> 

See the commit description for yet another Makefile weird behavior point. :)

thanks,
Jason Gunthorpe Sept. 29, 2020, 5:55 p.m. UTC | #5
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:44:31AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> > > > > index d1ae706d9927..9cc6bc087461 100644
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
> > > > > @@ -130,3 +130,5 @@ endif
> > > > >    $(OUTPUT)/userfaultfd: LDLIBS += -lpthread
> > > > >    $(OUTPUT)/mlock-random-test: LDLIBS += -lcap
> > > > > +
> > > > > +$(OUTPUT)/gup_test: ../../../../mm/gup_test.h
> > > > 
> > > > There is no reason to do this, the auto depends will pick up header
> > > > files, and gup_test.h isn't a generated file
> > > > 
> 
> Oh, I misread your comment! You were talking about this Makefile
> dependency that I'm adding, rather than the ../'s in the path.
> 
> Well, for that though, it also has to stay as shown in this patch,
> because of this:
> 
> I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
> in this relatively simple Make system. 

It happens with -MD, all the deps are stored in files like mm/.init-mm.o.cmd
and sucked into the build.

> And so, without including an explicit header file dependency (at
> least, that's the simplest way), changes to gup_test.h are not
> detected.

Shouldn't be

> Both the Makefile code and the observed behavior back this up. (I
> expect that this is because there is less use of header files in
> this area, because most unit tests are self-contained within a
> single .c file.)

Something else is very wrong then.

Jason
John Hubbard Sept. 29, 2020, 6:59 p.m. UTC | #6
On 9/29/20 10:55 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:44:31AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
...
>> I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
>> in this relatively simple Make system.
> 
> It happens with -MD, all the deps are stored in files like mm/.init-mm.o.cmd
> and sucked into the build.

You are thinking of kbuild. This is not kbuild. There are no such artifacts
being generated.

>> And so, without including an explicit header file dependency (at
>> least, that's the simplest way), changes to gup_test.h are not
>> detected.
> 
> Shouldn't be
> 
>> Both the Makefile code and the observed behavior back this up. (I
>> expect that this is because there is less use of header files in
>> this area, because most unit tests are self-contained within a
>> single .c file.)
> 
> Something else is very wrong then.
> 

Not really, it's just a less-cabable system than kbuild.

thanks,
Jason Gunthorpe Sept. 29, 2020, 7:08 p.m. UTC | #7
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:59:55AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/29/20 10:55 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:44:31AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> ...
> > > I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
> > > in this relatively simple Make system.
> > 
> > It happens with -MD, all the deps are stored in files like mm/.init-mm.o.cmd
> > and sucked into the build.
> 
> You are thinking of kbuild. This is not kbuild. There are no such artifacts
> being generated.

Oh. Really? That's horrible.

Jason
John Hubbard Sept. 29, 2020, 7:48 p.m. UTC | #8
On 9/29/20 12:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:59:55AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 10:55 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:44:31AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
>>>> in this relatively simple Make system.
>>>
>>> It happens with -MD, all the deps are stored in files like mm/.init-mm.o.cmd
>>> and sucked into the build.
>>
>> You are thinking of kbuild. This is not kbuild. There are no such artifacts
>> being generated.
> 
> Oh. Really? That's horrible.
> 

Well, yes, it's not a perfect build system down here in selftests/. Are you saying
that it is worth upgrading? I'm open to suggestions and ideas for improvements,
and at the moment, I have the miniature build system here mostly loaded into my
head. So for a brief shining moment I can probably understand it well enough to
work on it. :)


thanks,
Jason Gunthorpe Sept. 29, 2020, 7:53 p.m. UTC | #9
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:48:43PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/29/20 12:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:59:55AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 9/29/20 10:55 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:44:31AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > > > On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
> > > > > in this relatively simple Make system.
> > > > 
> > > > It happens with -MD, all the deps are stored in files like mm/.init-mm.o.cmd
> > > > and sucked into the build.
> > > 
> > > You are thinking of kbuild. This is not kbuild. There are no such artifacts
> > > being generated.
> > 
> > Oh. Really? That's horrible.
> > 
> 
> Well, yes, it's not a perfect build system down here in selftests/. Are you saying
> that it is worth upgrading? I'm open to suggestions and ideas for improvements,
> and at the moment, I have the miniature build system here mostly loaded into my
> head. So for a brief shining moment I can probably understand it well enough to
> work on it. :)

I only remarked because I didn't know it wasn't using kbuild. I
thought it would have used the existing HOSTCC stuff, not sure why it
is special.

The only investment that seems worthwhile would be to switch it to use
the normal kbuild stuff??

Jason
Shuah Khan Sept. 29, 2020, 8 p.m. UTC | #10
On 9/29/20 1:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:48:43PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 12:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:59:55AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/20 10:55 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:44:31AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/29/20 9:35 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:10:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/28/20 5:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:21:53PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> I don't see any "gcc -m" type of dependency generation pass happening
>>>>>> in this relatively simple Make system.
>>>>>
>>>>> It happens with -MD, all the deps are stored in files like mm/.init-mm.o.cmd
>>>>> and sucked into the build.
>>>>
>>>> You are thinking of kbuild. This is not kbuild. There are no such artifacts
>>>> being generated.
>>>
>>> Oh. Really? That's horrible.
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes, it's not a perfect build system down here in selftests/. Are you saying
>> that it is worth upgrading? I'm open to suggestions and ideas for improvements,
>> and at the moment, I have the miniature build system here mostly loaded into my
>> head. So for a brief shining moment I can probably understand it well enough to
>> work on it. :)
> 
> I only remarked because I didn't know it wasn't using kbuild. I
> thought it would have used the existing HOSTCC stuff, not sure why it
> is special.
> 
> The only investment that seems worthwhile would be to switch it to use
> the normal kbuild stuff??
> 

I explored switching to kbuild at the kernel summit last year during
my kselftest where are we talk.

There was push back from several developers. We can definitely explore
it as long as we can still support being able to build and run
individual subsystem tests and doesn't break workflow for developers.

If you are up for it, propose a patch and we can discuss it.

thanks,
-- Shuah
John Hubbard Sept. 29, 2020, 8:11 p.m. UTC | #11
On 9/29/20 1:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/29/20 1:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> I only remarked because I didn't know it wasn't using kbuild. I
>> thought it would have used the existing HOSTCC stuff, not sure why it
>> is special.
>>
>> The only investment that seems worthwhile would be to switch it to use
>> the normal kbuild stuff??
>>
> 
> I explored switching to kbuild at the kernel summit last year during
> my kselftest where are we talk.
> 
> There was push back from several developers. We can definitely explore
> it as long as we can still support being able to build and run
> individual subsystem tests and doesn't break workflow for developers.
> 

Do you have a link or two for that? Especially about the pushback, and
conclusions reached, if any.



thanks,
Shuah Khan Sept. 29, 2020, 8:20 p.m. UTC | #12
On 9/29/20 2:11 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/29/20 1:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 1:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> I only remarked because I didn't know it wasn't using kbuild. I
>>> thought it would have used the existing HOSTCC stuff, not sure why it
>>> is special.
>>>
>>> The only investment that seems worthwhile would be to switch it to use
>>> the normal kbuild stuff??
>>>
>>
>> I explored switching to kbuild at the kernel summit last year during
>> my kselftest where are we talk.
>>
>> There was push back from several developers. We can definitely explore
>> it as long as we can still support being able to build and run
>> individual subsystem tests and doesn't break workflow for developers.
>>
> 
> Do you have a link or two for that? Especially about the pushback, and
> conclusions reached, if any.
> 

Unfortunately no. A I recall it was workflow related issues and ease of
running individual subsystem tests and backwards compatibility with
stables.

Let's start a new discussion and see where we land.

thanks,
-- Shuah
John Hubbard Sept. 29, 2020, 8:36 p.m. UTC | #13
On 9/29/20 1:20 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/29/20 2:11 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
...
>> Do you have a link or two for that? Especially about the pushback, and
>> conclusions reached, if any.
>>
> 
> Unfortunately no. A I recall it was workflow related issues and ease of
> running individual subsystem tests and backwards compatibility with
> stables.
> 
> Let's start a new discussion and see where we land.
> 
OK, sure. I can take a quick pass at converting just the selftests/vm
directory to kbuild, and post that as an RFC to start the discussion.


thanks,
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/mm/gup_test.c b/mm/gup_test.c
index 10f41c0528de..a3c86d0fdff7 100644
--- a/mm/gup_test.c
+++ b/mm/gup_test.c
@@ -4,22 +4,7 @@ 
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
 #include <linux/ktime.h>
 #include <linux/debugfs.h>
-
-#define GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 1, struct gup_test)
-#define GUP_BENCHMARK		_IOWR('g', 2, struct gup_test)
-#define PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 3, struct gup_test)
-#define PIN_BENCHMARK		_IOWR('g', 4, struct gup_test)
-#define PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 5, struct gup_test)
-
-struct gup_test {
-	__u64 get_delta_usec;
-	__u64 put_delta_usec;
-	__u64 addr;
-	__u64 size;
-	__u32 nr_pages_per_call;
-	__u32 flags;
-	__u64 expansion[10];	/* For future use */
-};
+#include "gup_test.h"
 
 static void put_back_pages(unsigned int cmd, struct page **pages,
 			   unsigned long nr_pages)
diff --git a/mm/gup_test.h b/mm/gup_test.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..931c2f3f477a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/mm/gup_test.h
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ 
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
+#ifndef __GUP_TEST_H
+#define __GUP_TEST_H
+
+#include <linux/types.h>
+
+#define GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 1, struct gup_test)
+#define GUP_BENCHMARK		_IOWR('g', 2, struct gup_test)
+#define PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 3, struct gup_test)
+#define PIN_BENCHMARK		_IOWR('g', 4, struct gup_test)
+#define PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 5, struct gup_test)
+
+struct gup_test {
+	__u64 get_delta_usec;
+	__u64 put_delta_usec;
+	__u64 addr;
+	__u64 size;
+	__u32 nr_pages_per_call;
+	__u32 flags;
+};
+
+#endif	/* __GUP_TEST_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
index d1ae706d9927..9cc6bc087461 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
@@ -130,3 +130,5 @@  endif
 $(OUTPUT)/userfaultfd: LDLIBS += -lpthread
 
 $(OUTPUT)/mlock-random-test: LDLIBS += -lcap
+
+$(OUTPUT)/gup_test: ../../../../mm/gup_test.h
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c
index e930135727a2..70db259582c3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c
@@ -2,39 +2,19 @@ 
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <unistd.h>
-
 #include <sys/ioctl.h>
 #include <sys/mman.h>
 #include <sys/prctl.h>
 #include <sys/stat.h>
 #include <sys/types.h>
-
-#include <linux/types.h>
+#include "../../../../mm/gup_test.h"
 
 #define MB (1UL << 20)
 #define PAGE_SIZE sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE)
 
-#define GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 1, struct gup_test)
-#define GUP_BENCHMARK		_IOWR('g', 2, struct gup_test)
-
-/* Similar to above, but use FOLL_PIN instead of FOLL_GET. */
-#define PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 3, struct gup_test)
-#define PIN_BENCHMARK		_IOWR('g', 4, struct gup_test)
-#define PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK	_IOWR('g', 5, struct gup_test)
-
 /* Just the flags we need, copied from mm.h: */
 #define FOLL_WRITE	0x01	/* check pte is writable */
 
-struct gup_test {
-	__u64 get_delta_usec;
-	__u64 put_delta_usec;
-	__u64 addr;
-	__u64 size;
-	__u32 nr_pages_per_call;
-	__u32 flags;
-	__u64 expansion[10];	/* For future use */
-};
-
 int main(int argc, char **argv)
 {
 	struct gup_test gup;