| Message ID | 20240912100018.736447-1-zhangchunyan@iscas.ac.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftest/mm: Do not use hint for riscv mmap | expand |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:00:18PM +0800, Chunyan Zhang wrote: > When the virtual address range selftest is run on RISC-V platforms, > it is observed that using the hint address when calling mmap cannot > get the address in the range of that validate_addr() checks, also > that will cause '/proc/self/maps' have gaps larger than MAP_CHUNK_SIZE. > > Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <zhangchunyan@iscas.ac.cn> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > index 4e4c1e311247..25f3eb304999 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ > #define NR_CHUNKS_HIGH NR_CHUNKS_384TB > #endif > > +#if defined(__riscv) && (__riscv_xlen == 64) > +static char *hind_addr(void) This is not a typo by you since this is the name of the original function but this should be "hint_addr" right? > +{ > + return NULL; > +} > + > +static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) { } > +#else This is something that I am trying to solve over at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240905-patches-below_hint_mmap-v3-0-3cd5564efbbb@rivosinc.com/ (the solution is still in flux). Since riscv doesn't currently have this behavior of restricting the virtual address space, I think it is more reasonable to disable this test entirely. After we have a longer-term solution with the patch I have up we can adjust the test and re-enable it. What do you think? - Charlie > static char *hind_addr(void) > { > int bits = HIGH_ADDR_SHIFT + rand() % (63 - HIGH_ADDR_SHIFT); > @@ -81,6 +89,7 @@ static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) > if (addr > HIGH_ADDR_MARK) > ksft_exit_fail_msg("Bad address %lx\n", addr); > } > +#endif > > static int validate_lower_address_hint(void) > { > -- > 2.34.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 04:47, Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:00:18PM +0800, Chunyan Zhang wrote: > > When the virtual address range selftest is run on RISC-V platforms, > > it is observed that using the hint address when calling mmap cannot > > get the address in the range of that validate_addr() checks, also > > that will cause '/proc/self/maps' have gaps larger than MAP_CHUNK_SIZE. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <zhangchunyan@iscas.ac.cn> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > > index 4e4c1e311247..25f3eb304999 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > > @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ > > #define NR_CHUNKS_HIGH NR_CHUNKS_384TB > > #endif > > > > +#if defined(__riscv) && (__riscv_xlen == 64) > > +static char *hind_addr(void) > > This is not a typo by you since this is the name of the original > function but this should be "hint_addr" right? Right, didn't notice this typo, let me fix it. > > > +{ > > + return NULL; > > +} > > + > > +static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) { } > > +#else > > This is something that I am trying to solve over at > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240905-patches-below_hint_mmap-v3-0-3cd5564efbbb@rivosinc.com/ > (the solution is still in flux). Since riscv doesn't currently have this > behavior of restricting the virtual address space, I think it is more > reasonable to disable this test entirely. After we have a longer-term > solution with the patch I have up we can adjust the test and re-enable > it. What do you think? That also makes sense, I will send another patch to do that. Thanks, Chunyan > > - Charlie > > > static char *hind_addr(void) > > { > > int bits = HIGH_ADDR_SHIFT + rand() % (63 - HIGH_ADDR_SHIFT); > > @@ -81,6 +89,7 @@ static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) > > if (addr > HIGH_ADDR_MARK) > > ksft_exit_fail_msg("Bad address %lx\n", addr); > > } > > +#endif > > > > static int validate_lower_address_hint(void) > > { > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-riscv mailing list > > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c index 4e4c1e311247..25f3eb304999 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ #define NR_CHUNKS_HIGH NR_CHUNKS_384TB #endif +#if defined(__riscv) && (__riscv_xlen == 64) +static char *hind_addr(void) +{ + return NULL; +} + +static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) { } +#else static char *hind_addr(void) { int bits = HIGH_ADDR_SHIFT + rand() % (63 - HIGH_ADDR_SHIFT); @@ -81,6 +89,7 @@ static void validate_addr(char *ptr, int high_addr) if (addr > HIGH_ADDR_MARK) ksft_exit_fail_msg("Bad address %lx\n", addr); } +#endif static int validate_lower_address_hint(void) {
When the virtual address range selftest is run on RISC-V platforms, it is observed that using the hint address when calling mmap cannot get the address in the range of that validate_addr() checks, also that will cause '/proc/self/maps' have gaps larger than MAP_CHUNK_SIZE. Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <zhangchunyan@iscas.ac.cn> --- tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)