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) +{ + 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) {
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-v3-0-3cd5564ef... (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-v3-0-3cd5564ef... (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
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Charlie Jenkins -
Chunyan Zhang -
Chunyan Zhang