From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F52E77188 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 5458F6B0082; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 01:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4F6396B0083; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 01:16:29 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3BD5A6B0088; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 01:16:29 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0E76B0082 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 01:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9671C80F84 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:16:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82983275256.16.3186C69 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E314480004 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of dev.jain@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dev.jain@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1736316987; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bpfLyiz95WaELWwhgpPDf7k9Sc0XKrJgFZ/htMggHkk=; b=uEs80AunyurzRuuO9iWS/Yd1WIznNDcNA6/wNXRbz/XoqKnXWDBmiJJZn+Er0KQ45XDto8 C74rxhIOuRAmkiSyfX1eF0hQJDDWensQQXunUkhWtxxnbm8sJOLIeh9GMp4dvHVw6BecSB 4Z0FAO0JgxJfpCYJpoYHozxt0VnASuM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of dev.jain@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dev.jain@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1736316987; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=SakID9Vfx7hXFMypGGmUgCnNcHcnmFy87zCl6nZAUhAW5aGz3N5mvEnj8STGttW4t2qequ 4ikkhIATNuTZLWs/IYfMvm33gWp6EiWflWApLULYhLvWH2PWu/dEMX+cWeVAGyInkh3RoU Xilct1estllDTE0hPdActDGn30th+VE= Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2068213D5; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 22:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.162.43.18] (K4MQJ0H1H2.blr.arm.com [10.162.43.18]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CCFC3F66E; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 22:16:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5811cf74-d333-4653-ab64-0e981eda7745@arm.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:46:19 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] selftests/mm: virtual_address_range: Fix error when CommitLimit < 1GiB To: =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= , Andrew Morton , Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Ryan Roberts , David Hildenbrand References: <20250107-virtual_address_range-tests-v1-0-3834a2fb47fe@linutronix.de> <20250107-virtual_address_range-tests-v1-1-3834a2fb47fe@linutronix.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Dev Jain In-Reply-To: <20250107-virtual_address_range-tests-v1-1-3834a2fb47fe@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E314480004 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: eq3ppebw7ggsheujn9pm7rooqg8ucedy X-HE-Tag: 1736316986-416750 X-HE-Meta: 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 73MvyZ4q 46aUHUPPVsC8SX2rjlhJ/dqL7xLQbsF/J8KgVmk668XLGr4TFBzLJXi5gvRqsCJjS36uJdpsyypEhzGimoR1/YgKsPQkUtqGPI6MLQNDWf0kCz2nKGtqIjqmDZM3HM2vc+JX4r5DGn9qLJVBSYutgCZJ3K1lsf75IipMXdfFmkZv+Ot1VOiukWdS5K8qogI/ml61R+H1qVzhw25uPu0o6oVSBveePS/sv+JMfbuXG7gyQY/E= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 07/01/25 8:44 pm, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > If not enough physical memory is available the kernel may fail mmap(); > see __vm_enough_memory() and vm_commit_limit(). > In that case the logic in validate_complete_va_space() does not make > sense and will even incorrectly fail. > Instead skip the test if no mmap() succeeded. > > Fixes: 010409649885 ("selftests/mm: confirm VA exhaustion without reliance on correctness of mmap()") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh > > --- > The logic in __vm_enough_memory() seems weird. > It describes itself as "Check that a process has enough memory to > allocate a new virtual mapping", however it never checks the current > memory usage of the process. > So it only disallows large mappings. But many small mappings taking the > same amount of memory are allowed; and then even automatically merged > into one big mapping. > --- > tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > index 2a2b69e91950a37999f606847c9c8328d79890c2..d7bf8094d8bcd4bc96e2db4dc3fcb41968def859 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/virtual_address_range.c > @@ -178,6 +178,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > validate_addr(ptr[i], 0); > } > lchunks = i; > + > + if (!lchunks) { > + ksft_test_result_skip("Not enough memory for a single chunk\n"); > + ksft_finished(); > + } > + > hptr = (char **) calloc(NR_CHUNKS_HIGH, sizeof(char *)); > if (hptr == NULL) { > ksft_test_result_skip("Memory constraint not fulfilled\n"); > I do not know about __vm_enough_memory(), but I am going by your description: You say that the kernel may fail mmap() when enough physical memory is not there, but it may happen that we have already done 100 mmap()'s, and then the kernel fails mmap(), so if (!lchunks) won't be able to handle this case. Basically, lchunks == 0 is not a complete indicator of kernel failing mmap(). The basic assumption of the test is that any process should be able to exhaust its virtual address space, and running the test under memory pressure and the kernel violating this behaviour defeats the point of the test I think?