[LTP] [PATCH v3] syscalls/move_pages12: Add new regression test
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
Thu Feb 9 11:56:35 CET 2017
Hi!
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "move_pages_support.h"
> +
> +#if HAVE_NUMA_MOVE_PAGES
> +
> +#define LOOPS 1000
> +#define PATH_MEMINFO "/proc/meminfo"
> +#define PATH_NR_HUGEPAGES "/proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages"
> +#define PATH_HUGEPAGES "/sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/"
> +#define TEST_PAGES 2
> +#define TEST_NODES 2
> +
> +static int pgsz, hpsz;
> +static long orig_hugepages;
> +static unsigned int node1, node2;
> +static void *addr;
> +
> +static void do_child(void)
> +{
> + int test_pages = TEST_PAGES * hpsz / pgsz;
> + int i, j;
> + int *nodes, *status;
> + void **pages;
> + pid_t ppid = getppid();
> +
> + pages = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(char *) * test_pages + 1);
> + nodes = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(char *) * test_pages + 1);
> + status = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(char *) * test_pages + 1);
I know that this is taken from to original reproduced, but these
allocations appears to be wrong. Both nodes and status are, as far as I
can tell, arrays of integers, so this should in fact be:
pages = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(char *) * test_pages);
nodes = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(int) * test_pages);
status = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(int) * test_pages);
I'm not even sure why there is + 1 in the original code, what is that
extra byte usefull for.
Does the reproducer still work once we allocate these arrays correctly?
> + for (i = 0; i < test_pages; i++)
> + pages[i] = addr + i * pgsz;
> +
> + for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> + for (j = 0; j < test_pages; j++) {
> + if (i % 2 == 0)
> + nodes[j] = node1;
> + else
> + nodes[j] = node2;
> + status[j] = 0;
> + }
> +
> + TEST(numa_move_pages(ppid, test_pages,
> + pages, nodes, status, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL));
> + if (TEST_RETURN) {
> + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "move_pages failed");
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + exit(0);
> +}
> +
> +static void do_test(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> + pid_t cpid = -1;
> + int status;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++) {
> + addr = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, TEST_PAGES * hpsz,
> + PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_HUGETLB, -1, 0);
> +
> + memset(addr, 0, TEST_PAGES * hpsz);
> +
> + SAFE_MUNMAP(addr, TEST_PAGES * hpsz);
> +
> + if (i == 0) {
> + cpid = SAFE_FORK();
> + if (cpid == 0)
> + do_child();
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (i == LOOPS) {
> + SAFE_KILL(cpid, SIGKILL);
> + SAFE_WAITPID(cpid, &status, 0);
> + if (!WIFEXITED(status))
> + tst_res(TPASS, "Bug not reproduced");
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void setup(void)
> +{
> + int memfree, ret;
> +
> + check_config(TEST_NODES);
> +
> + if (access(PATH_HUGEPAGES, F_OK))
> + tst_brk(TCONF, "Huge page not supported");
> +
> + pgsz = (int)get_page_size();
> + SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF(PATH_MEMINFO, "Hugepagesize: %d", &hpsz);
> + hpsz *= 1024;
> +
> + SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF(PATH_MEMINFO, "MemFree: %d", &memfree);
> + memfree *= 1024;
> + if (4 * hpsz > memfree)
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "RAM not enough");
^
This should rather be "Not enough free RAM"
Or something similar, but that is minor.
> + SAFE_FILE_SCANF(PATH_NR_HUGEPAGES, "%ld", &orig_hugepages);
> + SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(PATH_NR_HUGEPAGES, "%ld", orig_hugepages + 4);
> +
> + ret = get_allowed_nodes(NH_MEMS, TEST_NODES, &node1, &node2);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "get_allowed_nodes: %d", ret);
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> + SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(PATH_NR_HUGEPAGES, "%ld", orig_hugepages);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> + .tid = "move_pages12",
> + .min_kver = "2.6.32",
> + .needs_root = 1,
> + .forks_child = 1,
> + .setup = setup,
> + .cleanup = cleanup,
> + .test_all = do_test,
> +};
> +
> +#else
> + tst_res(TCONF, "move_pages support not found");
> +#endif
The rest looks good.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
More information about the ltp
mailing list