| Message ID | 20240717111011.316037-1-dev.jain@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests/mm: Skip test for non-LPA2 and non-LVA systems | expand |
On 17/07/2024 12:10, Dev Jain wrote: > Post my improvement of the test: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240522070435.773918-3-dev.jain@arm.com/ > The test begins to fail on 4k and 16k pages, on non-LPA2 systems. To > reduce noise in the CI systems, let us skip the test when higher address > space is not implemented. > > Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> > --- > The patch applies on linux-next. > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c > index fa7eabfaf841..c6040e1d6e53 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c > @@ -293,6 +293,18 @@ static int run_test(struct testcase *test, int count) > return ret; > } > > +/* Check if userspace VA > 48 bits */ > +static int high_address_present(void) > +{ > + void *ptr = mmap((void *)(1UL << 50), 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0); I think there is (very unlikely) possibility that something is already mapped at this address so it will be replaced due to MAP_FIXED. That could break the test. But the only way something could be already mapped is if ARM64_FORCE_52BIT is set and in that case, the test will fail anyway, right? So I think this is fine. > + if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) > + return 0; > + > + munmap(ptr, 1); > + return 1; > +} I'm guessing this will cause a function-not-used warning on arches other than arm64? Perhaps wrap it in `#ifdef __aarch64__`? Thanks, Ryan > + > static int supported_arch(void) > { > #if defined(__powerpc64__) > @@ -300,7 +312,7 @@ static int supported_arch(void) > #elif defined(__x86_64__) > return 1; > #elif defined(__aarch64__) > - return 1; > + return high_address_present(); > #else > return 0; > #endif
On 7/17/24 17:27, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 17/07/2024 12:10, Dev Jain wrote: >> Post my improvement of the test: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240522070435.773918-3-dev.jain@arm.com/ >> The test begins to fail on 4k and 16k pages, on non-LPA2 systems. To >> reduce noise in the CI systems, let us skip the test when higher address >> space is not implemented. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> >> --- >> The patch applies on linux-next. >> >> tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >> index fa7eabfaf841..c6040e1d6e53 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >> @@ -293,6 +293,18 @@ static int run_test(struct testcase *test, int count) >> return ret; >> } >> >> +/* Check if userspace VA > 48 bits */ >> +static int high_address_present(void) >> +{ >> + void *ptr = mmap((void *)(1UL << 50), 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >> + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0); > I think there is (very unlikely) possibility that something is already mapped at > this address so it will be replaced due to MAP_FIXED. That could break the test. > But the only way something could be already mapped is if ARM64_FORCE_52BIT is > set and in that case, the test will fail anyway, right? So I think this is fine. The testcases already assume that high addresses must be empty. Yes, FORCE_52BIT is the only way something could already be mapped at high addresses, but in that case the test fails trivially. > >> + if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) >> + return 0; >> + >> + munmap(ptr, 1); >> + return 1; >> +} > I'm guessing this will cause a function-not-used warning on arches other than > arm64? Perhaps wrap it in `#ifdef __aarch64__`? Ah yes, I just checked and that is true. I shall post v2 in some time, shall wait if any more comments are there. > > Thanks, > Ryan > >> + >> static int supported_arch(void) >> { >> #if defined(__powerpc64__) >> @@ -300,7 +312,7 @@ static int supported_arch(void) >> #elif defined(__x86_64__) >> return 1; >> #elif defined(__aarch64__) >> - return 1; >> + return high_address_present(); >> #else >> return 0; >> #endif
On 17/07/2024 13:11, Dev Jain wrote: > > On 7/17/24 17:27, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 17/07/2024 12:10, Dev Jain wrote: >>> Post my improvement of the test: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240522070435.773918-3-dev.jain@arm.com/ >>> The test begins to fail on 4k and 16k pages, on non-LPA2 systems. To >>> reduce noise in the CI systems, let us skip the test when higher address >>> space is not implemented. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> >>> --- >>> The patch applies on linux-next. >>> >>> tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >>> index fa7eabfaf841..c6040e1d6e53 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c >>> @@ -293,6 +293,18 @@ static int run_test(struct testcase *test, int count) >>> return ret; >>> } >>> +/* Check if userspace VA > 48 bits */ >>> +static int high_address_present(void) >>> +{ >>> + void *ptr = mmap((void *)(1UL << 50), 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>> + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0); >> I think there is (very unlikely) possibility that something is already mapped at >> this address so it will be replaced due to MAP_FIXED. That could break the test. >> But the only way something could be already mapped is if ARM64_FORCE_52BIT is >> set and in that case, the test will fail anyway, right? So I think this is fine. > > The testcases already assume that high addresses must be empty. Yes, FORCE_52BIT > is the only way something could already be mapped at high addresses, but in that > case the test fails trivially. agreed. > >> >>> + if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) >>> + return 0; >>> + >>> + munmap(ptr, 1); >>> + return 1; >>> +} >> I'm guessing this will cause a function-not-used warning on arches other than >> arm64? Perhaps wrap it in `#ifdef __aarch64__`? > > Ah yes, I just checked and that is true. I shall post v2 in some time, shall > wait if any more comments are there. With this fixup: Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> > >> >> Thanks, >> Ryan >> >>> + >>> static int supported_arch(void) >>> { >>> #if defined(__powerpc64__) >>> @@ -300,7 +312,7 @@ static int supported_arch(void) >>> #elif defined(__x86_64__) >>> return 1; >>> #elif defined(__aarch64__) >>> - return 1; >>> + return high_address_present(); >>> #else >>> return 0; >>> #endif
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c index fa7eabfaf841..c6040e1d6e53 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c @@ -293,6 +293,18 @@ static int run_test(struct testcase *test, int count) return ret; } +/* Check if userspace VA > 48 bits */ +static int high_address_present(void) +{ + void *ptr = mmap((void *)(1UL << 50), 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0); + if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) + return 0; + + munmap(ptr, 1); + return 1; +} + static int supported_arch(void) { #if defined(__powerpc64__) @@ -300,7 +312,7 @@ static int supported_arch(void) #elif defined(__x86_64__) return 1; #elif defined(__aarch64__) - return 1; + return high_address_present(); #else return 0; #endif
Post my improvement of the test: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240522070435.773918-3-dev.jain@arm.com/ The test begins to fail on 4k and 16k pages, on non-LPA2 systems. To reduce noise in the CI systems, let us skip the test when higher address space is not implemented. Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> --- The patch applies on linux-next. tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c | 14 +++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)