| Message ID | 20230602013358.900637-11-jhubbard@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | A minor flurry of selftest/mm fixes | expand |
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 06:33:56PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > This is where they belong, and this makes it cleaner to apply a > follow-up fix to the uffd builds. > > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> Thanks for further looking into this. I'm fine to move it over if you think proper, but just to mention I had those in vm_utils.h just because I left all uffd specific tests shared code in uffd-common.h, so my plan was uffd-common.h shouldn't be included in most test cases except uffd tests. I'm not sure whether we can just make your next patch of "ifndef.." into vm_utils.h to avoid the movement, or is it a must? Thanks,
On 6/2/23 08:59, Peter Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 06:33:56PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: >> This is where they belong, and this makes it cleaner to apply a >> follow-up fix to the uffd builds. >> >> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> > > Thanks for further looking into this. > > I'm fine to move it over if you think proper, but just to mention I had > those in vm_utils.h just because I left all uffd specific tests shared code > in uffd-common.h, so my plan was uffd-common.h shouldn't be included in > most test cases except uffd tests. I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their best-named location. > > I'm not sure whether we can just make your next patch of "ifndef.." into > vm_utils.h to avoid the movement, or is it a must? > Actually, I think I can drop the next patch entirely, based on Muhammad's observation that we should be doing a "make headers" to pull in those items. I'll have more to say over on that thread. thanks,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 03:11:52PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 6/2/23 08:59, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 06:33:56PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > > This is where they belong, and this makes it cleaner to apply a > > > follow-up fix to the uffd builds. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> > > > > Thanks for further looking into this. > > > > I'm fine to move it over if you think proper, but just to mention I had > > those in vm_utils.h just because I left all uffd specific tests shared code > > in uffd-common.h, so my plan was uffd-common.h shouldn't be included in > > most test cases except uffd tests. > > I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h > where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I > would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their > best-named location. Sorry I didn't get it - e.g. I'm confused why we need to export uffd_test_ops into ksm unit test, it doesn't make much sense to me.. If you think vm_util.h is a name too common to contain uffd helpers, shall we create another vm_util_uffd.h just to put the uffd helpers? Just see what's there in uffd-common.h, which is still ugly (I could look into it some other day): extern unsigned long nr_cpus, nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu, page_size; extern char *area_src, *area_src_alias, *area_dst, *area_dst_alias, *area_remap; extern int uffd, uffd_flags, finished, *pipefd, test_type; extern bool map_shared; extern bool test_uffdio_wp; extern unsigned long long *count_verify; extern volatile bool test_uffdio_copy_eexist; extern uffd_test_ops_t anon_uffd_test_ops; extern uffd_test_ops_t shmem_uffd_test_ops; extern uffd_test_ops_t hugetlb_uffd_test_ops; extern uffd_test_ops_t *uffd_test_ops; and more. That's why I think this header should not better be included by anyone else besides uffd-stress.c and uffd-unit-tests.c for now. > > > > > I'm not sure whether we can just make your next patch of "ifndef.." into > > vm_utils.h to avoid the movement, or is it a must? > > > > Actually, I think I can drop the next patch entirely, based on > Muhammad's observation that we should be doing a "make headers" > to pull in those items. I'll have more to say over on that thread. Sure, great if the local headers will work. Thanks.
On 6/2/23 15:38, Peter Xu wrote: ... >>> I'm fine to move it over if you think proper, but just to mention I had >>> those in vm_utils.h just because I left all uffd specific tests shared code >>> in uffd-common.h, so my plan was uffd-common.h shouldn't be included in >>> most test cases except uffd tests. >> >> I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h >> where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I >> would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their >> best-named location. > > Sorry I didn't get it - e.g. I'm confused why we need to export > uffd_test_ops into ksm unit test, it doesn't make much sense to me.. Oh, I see what you mean, finally. Yes. ksm should not need that. > > If you think vm_util.h is a name too common to contain uffd helpers, shall Right, given the presence of uffd-common.[chg], I really want to avoid putting the uffd helpers somewhere else... > we create another vm_util_uffd.h just to put the uffd helpers? > > Just see what's there in uffd-common.h, which is still ugly (I could look > into it some other day): Good point. > > extern unsigned long nr_cpus, nr_pages, nr_pages_per_cpu, page_size; > extern char *area_src, *area_src_alias, *area_dst, *area_dst_alias, *area_remap; > extern int uffd, uffd_flags, finished, *pipefd, test_type; > extern bool map_shared; > extern bool test_uffdio_wp; > extern unsigned long long *count_verify; > extern volatile bool test_uffdio_copy_eexist; > > extern uffd_test_ops_t anon_uffd_test_ops; > extern uffd_test_ops_t shmem_uffd_test_ops; > extern uffd_test_ops_t hugetlb_uffd_test_ops; > extern uffd_test_ops_t *uffd_test_ops; > > and more. > > That's why I think this header should not better be included by anyone else > besides uffd-stress.c and uffd-unit-tests.c for now. > OK, I think I can arrange things to meet that requirement. Let me take another shot at it. thanks,
On 6/2/23 15:52, John Hubbard wrote: > On 6/2/23 15:38, Peter Xu wrote: > ... >>> I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h >>> where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I >>> would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their >>> best-named location. >> >> Sorry I didn't get it - e.g. I'm confused why we need to export >> uffd_test_ops into ksm unit test, it doesn't make much sense to me.. > > Oh, I see what you mean, finally. Yes. ksm should not need that. > ...whoops, correction, our very own David Hildenbrand recently made changes that contradict the claim that "ksm and uffd selftests are independent". In fact, ksm now *intentionally* depends upon uffd, as of commit 93fb70aa5904c ("selftests/vm: add KSM unmerge tests"), aha! That added commit added a call to test_unmerge_uffd_wp(), to ksm_functional_tests.c . So this needs to stay approximately as-is, it seems. thanks,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:43:19PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 6/2/23 15:52, John Hubbard wrote: > > On 6/2/23 15:38, Peter Xu wrote: > > ... > > > > I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h > > > > where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I > > > > would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their > > > > best-named location. > > > > > > Sorry I didn't get it - e.g. I'm confused why we need to export > > > uffd_test_ops into ksm unit test, it doesn't make much sense to me.. > > > > Oh, I see what you mean, finally. Yes. ksm should not need that. > > > > ...whoops, correction, our very own David Hildenbrand recently made > changes that contradict the claim that "ksm and uffd selftests are > independent". In fact, ksm now *intentionally* depends upon uffd, as of > commit 93fb70aa5904c ("selftests/vm: add KSM unmerge tests"), aha! > > That added commit added a call to test_unmerge_uffd_wp(), to > ksm_functional_tests.c . > > So this needs to stay approximately as-is, it seems. So I think it depends on what is "as-is" to me in the above sentence. :) test_unmerge_uffd_wp() impled its own uffd ioctls, and it still doesn't use any of uffd-common.h of now (e.g. uffd_test_ops). IMHO if we want we can let test_unmerge_uffd_wp() reuse either uffd_get_features(), uffd_open(), uffd_register() etc., but still all of them are provided by vm_util.h not uffd-common.h for now, and that's intended (vm_util.h can contain uffd helpers, or whatever helpers as long as generic mm/ unit tests need). We can even move wp_range() from uffd-common.[ch] into vm_utils.[ch], then it can also share that (need to replace err(), that's uffd-common specific). Not necessary anything must be done in this series, though. Thanks,
On 6/2/23 18:18, Peter Xu wrote: ... >> ...whoops, correction, our very own David Hildenbrand recently made >> changes that contradict the claim that "ksm and uffd selftests are >> independent". In fact, ksm now *intentionally* depends upon uffd, as of >> commit 93fb70aa5904c ("selftests/vm: add KSM unmerge tests"), aha! >> >> That added commit added a call to test_unmerge_uffd_wp(), to >> ksm_functional_tests.c . >> >> So this needs to stay approximately as-is, it seems. > > So I think it depends on what is "as-is" to me in the above sentence. :) > > test_unmerge_uffd_wp() impled its own uffd ioctls, and it still doesn't use > any of uffd-common.h of now (e.g. uffd_test_ops). > > IMHO if we want we can let test_unmerge_uffd_wp() reuse either > uffd_get_features(), uffd_open(), uffd_register() etc., but still all of > them are provided by vm_util.h not uffd-common.h for now, and that's > intended (vm_util.h can contain uffd helpers, or whatever helpers as long > as generic mm/ unit tests need). ksm_functional_tests.c calls uffd_register(). That's about as clear as it gets: this file distinctly depends upon uffd test functionality. The goal here is to put uffd*() routines into uffd-common.[ch], and everything else into vm_utils.[ch]. Because that's what you do, when you have such named files. Putting uffd*() routines somewhere other than uffd-common.* requires some...reason. And all I've heard so far is, "it was already scrambled--as intended, don't mess with it!" :) > > We can even move wp_range() from uffd-common.[ch] into vm_utils.[ch], then > it can also share that (need to replace err(), that's uffd-common > specific). Not necessary anything must be done in this series, though. > But wp_range(), despite its generic-sounding name, is another example of something that remains tightly coupled to the uffd code: it uses UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT to get its work done. So I'd recommend leaving this one in uffd-common.c. thanks,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile index 473bf1811552..9bf3305b7dea 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile @@ -109,8 +109,11 @@ include ../lib.mk $(TEST_GEN_PROGS): vm_util.c -$(OUTPUT)/uffd-stress: uffd-common.c -$(OUTPUT)/uffd-unit-tests: uffd-common.c +$(OUTPUT)/uffd-stress: uffd-common.c +$(OUTPUT)/uffd-unit-tests: uffd-common.c +$(OUTPUT)/hugepage-mremap: uffd-common.c +$(OUTPUT)/write_to_hugetlbfs: uffd-common.c +$(OUTPUT)/ksm_functional_tests: uffd-common.c ifeq ($(MACHINE),x86_64) BINARIES_32 := $(patsubst %,$(OUTPUT)/%,$(BINARIES_32)) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mremap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mremap.c index cabd0084f57b..8158fe909f5e 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mremap.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mremap.c @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdbool.h> -#include "vm_util.h" +#include "uffd-common.h" #define DEFAULT_LENGTH_MB 10UL #define MB_TO_BYTES(x) (x * 1024 * 1024) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c index 26853badae70..648188ad73fa 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ #include <linux/userfaultfd.h> #include "../kselftest.h" -#include "vm_util.h" +#include "uffd-common.h" #define KiB 1024u #define MiB (1024 * KiB) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.c index 61c6250adf93..e1ad63668a05 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.c @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ */ #include "uffd-common.h" +#include "vm_util.h" #define BASE_PMD_ADDR ((void *)(1UL << 30)) @@ -616,3 +617,107 @@ int copy_page(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool wp) { return __copy_page(ufd, offset, false, wp); } + +/* If `ioctls' non-NULL, the allowed ioctls will be returned into the var */ +int uffd_register_with_ioctls(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, + bool miss, bool wp, bool minor, uint64_t *ioctls) +{ + struct uffdio_register uffdio_register = { 0 }; + uint64_t mode = 0; + int ret = 0; + + if (miss) + mode |= UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING; + if (wp) + mode |= UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP; + if (minor) + mode |= UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MINOR; + + uffdio_register.range.start = (unsigned long)addr; + uffdio_register.range.len = len; + uffdio_register.mode = mode; + + if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_REGISTER, &uffdio_register) == -1) + ret = -errno; + else if (ioctls) + *ioctls = uffdio_register.ioctls; + + return ret; +} + +int uffd_register(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, + bool miss, bool wp, bool minor) +{ + return uffd_register_with_ioctls(uffd, addr, len, + miss, wp, minor, NULL); +} + +int uffd_unregister(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len) +{ + struct uffdio_range range = { .start = (uintptr_t)addr, .len = len }; + int ret = 0; + + if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_UNREGISTER, &range) == -1) + ret = -errno; + + return ret; +} + +int uffd_open_dev(unsigned int flags) +{ + int fd, uffd; + + fd = open("/dev/userfaultfd", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC); + if (fd < 0) + return fd; + uffd = ioctl(fd, USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW, flags); + close(fd); + + return uffd; +} + +int uffd_open_sys(unsigned int flags) +{ +#ifdef __NR_userfaultfd + return syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, flags); +#else + return -1; +#endif +} + +int uffd_open(unsigned int flags) +{ + int uffd = uffd_open_sys(flags); + + if (uffd < 0) + uffd = uffd_open_dev(flags); + + return uffd; +} + +int uffd_get_features(uint64_t *features) +{ + struct uffdio_api uffdio_api = { .api = UFFD_API, .features = 0 }; + /* + * This should by default work in most kernels; the feature list + * will be the same no matter what we pass in here. + */ + int fd = uffd_open(UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY); + + if (fd < 0) + /* Maybe the kernel is older than user-only mode? */ + fd = uffd_open(0); + + if (fd < 0) + return fd; + + if (ioctl(fd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api)) { + close(fd); + return -errno; + } + + *features = uffdio_api.features; + close(fd); + + return 0; +} diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.h b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.h index 6068f2346b86..a1cdb78c0762 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.h @@ -19,8 +19,6 @@ #include <signal.h> #include <poll.h> #include <string.h> -#include <linux/mman.h> -#include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/syscall.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sys/wait.h> @@ -110,6 +108,16 @@ int __copy_page(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool retry, bool wp); int copy_page(int ufd, unsigned long offset, bool wp); void *uffd_poll_thread(void *arg); +int uffd_register(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, + bool miss, bool wp, bool minor); +int uffd_unregister(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len); +int uffd_open_dev(unsigned int flags); +int uffd_open_sys(unsigned int flags); +int uffd_open(unsigned int flags); +int uffd_get_features(uint64_t *features); +int uffd_register_with_ioctls(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, + bool miss, bool wp, bool minor, uint64_t *ioctls); + #define TEST_ANON 1 #define TEST_HUGETLB 2 #define TEST_SHMEM 3 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c index 01296c17df02..c64a0134f83c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c @@ -198,110 +198,6 @@ unsigned long default_huge_page_size(void) return hps; } -/* If `ioctls' non-NULL, the allowed ioctls will be returned into the var */ -int uffd_register_with_ioctls(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, - bool miss, bool wp, bool minor, uint64_t *ioctls) -{ - struct uffdio_register uffdio_register = { 0 }; - uint64_t mode = 0; - int ret = 0; - - if (miss) - mode |= UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING; - if (wp) - mode |= UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP; - if (minor) - mode |= UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MINOR; - - uffdio_register.range.start = (unsigned long)addr; - uffdio_register.range.len = len; - uffdio_register.mode = mode; - - if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_REGISTER, &uffdio_register) == -1) - ret = -errno; - else if (ioctls) - *ioctls = uffdio_register.ioctls; - - return ret; -} - -int uffd_register(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, - bool miss, bool wp, bool minor) -{ - return uffd_register_with_ioctls(uffd, addr, len, - miss, wp, minor, NULL); -} - -int uffd_unregister(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len) -{ - struct uffdio_range range = { .start = (uintptr_t)addr, .len = len }; - int ret = 0; - - if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_UNREGISTER, &range) == -1) - ret = -errno; - - return ret; -} - -int uffd_open_dev(unsigned int flags) -{ - int fd, uffd; - - fd = open("/dev/userfaultfd", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC); - if (fd < 0) - return fd; - uffd = ioctl(fd, USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW, flags); - close(fd); - - return uffd; -} - -int uffd_open_sys(unsigned int flags) -{ -#ifdef __NR_userfaultfd - return syscall(__NR_userfaultfd, flags); -#else - return -1; -#endif -} - -int uffd_open(unsigned int flags) -{ - int uffd = uffd_open_sys(flags); - - if (uffd < 0) - uffd = uffd_open_dev(flags); - - return uffd; -} - -int uffd_get_features(uint64_t *features) -{ - struct uffdio_api uffdio_api = { .api = UFFD_API, .features = 0 }; - /* - * This should by default work in most kernels; the feature list - * will be the same no matter what we pass in here. - */ - int fd = uffd_open(UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY); - - if (fd < 0) - /* Maybe the kernel is older than user-only mode? */ - fd = uffd_open(0); - - if (fd < 0) - return fd; - - if (ioctl(fd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api)) { - close(fd); - return -errno; - } - - *features = uffdio_api.features; - close(fd); - - return 0; -} - unsigned int psize(void) { if (!__page_size) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h index 232ffeb5805c..7f5aac0ac680 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h @@ -33,16 +33,6 @@ bool check_huge_shmem(void *addr, int nr_hpages, uint64_t hpage_size); int64_t allocate_transhuge(void *ptr, int pagemap_fd); unsigned long default_huge_page_size(void); -int uffd_register(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, - bool miss, bool wp, bool minor); -int uffd_unregister(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len); -int uffd_open_dev(unsigned int flags); -int uffd_open_sys(unsigned int flags); -int uffd_open(unsigned int flags); -int uffd_get_features(uint64_t *features); -int uffd_register_with_ioctls(int uffd, void *addr, uint64_t len, - bool miss, bool wp, bool minor, uint64_t *ioctls); - /* * On ppc64 this will only work with radix 2M hugepage size */
This is where they belong, and this makes it cleaner to apply a follow-up fix to the uffd builds. Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile | 7 +- tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage-mremap.c | 2 +- .../selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-common.h | 12 +- tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c | 104 ----------------- tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h | 10 -- 7 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-)