diff options
author | 2023-07-24 09:25:16 +0100 | |
---|---|---|
committer | 2023-08-18 10:12:42 -0700 | |
commit | f6dd4e223d8798319d0e2815a468b9fb0a276446 (patch) | |
tree | 76e85c505899778f822367f8e73d60f24875fe52 /tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c | |
parent | selftests: line buffer test program's stdout (diff) | |
download | linux-f6dd4e223d8798319d0e2815a468b9fb0a276446.tar.gz linux-f6dd4e223d8798319d0e2815a468b9fb0a276446.tar.bz2 linux-f6dd4e223d8798319d0e2815a468b9fb0a276446.zip |
selftests/mm: skip soft-dirty tests on arm64
arm64 does not support the soft-dirty PTE bit. However, the `soft-dirty`
test suite is currently run unconditionally and therefore generates
spurious test failures on arm64. There are also some tests in
`madv_populate` which assume it is supported.
For `soft-dirty` lets disable the whole suite for arm64; it is no longer
built and run_vmtests.sh will skip it if its not present.
For `madv_populate`, we need a runtime mechanism so that the remaining
tests continue to be run. Unfortunately, the only way to determine if the
soft-dirty dirty bit is supported is to write to a page, then see if the
bit is set in /proc/self/pagemap. But the tests that we want to
conditionally execute are testing precicesly this. So if we introduced
this feature check, we could accedentally turn a real failure (on a system
that claims to support soft-dirty) into a skip. So instead, do the check
based on architecture; for arm64, we report that soft-dirty is not
supported.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230724082522.1202616-3-ryan.roberts@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c')
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c | 26 |
1 files changed, 24 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c index 60547245e479..17bcb07f19f3 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/madv_populate.c @@ -264,14 +264,35 @@ static void test_softdirty(void) munmap(addr, SIZE); } +static int system_has_softdirty(void) +{ + /* + * There is no way to check if the kernel supports soft-dirty, other + * than by writing to a page and seeing if the bit was set. But the + * tests are intended to check that the bit gets set when it should, so + * doing that check would turn a potentially legitimate fail into a + * skip. Fortunately, we know for sure that arm64 does not support + * soft-dirty. So for now, let's just use the arch as a corse guide. + */ +#if defined(__aarch64__) + return 0; +#else + return 1; +#endif +} + int main(int argc, char **argv) { + int nr_tests = 16; int err; pagesize = getpagesize(); + if (system_has_softdirty()) + nr_tests += 5; + ksft_print_header(); - ksft_set_plan(21); + ksft_set_plan(nr_tests); sense_support(); test_prot_read(); @@ -279,7 +300,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) test_holes(); test_populate_read(); test_populate_write(); - test_softdirty(); + if (system_has_softdirty()) + test_softdirty(); err = ksft_get_fail_cnt(); if (err) |