lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/2] Hugetlbfs support for riscv
From
Date

On 7/4/19 7:35 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/19 12:57 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>>
>>>> - libhugetlbfs testsuite on riscv64/2M:
>>>> - brk_near_huge triggers an assert in malloc.c, does not on x86.
>>> I was able to reproduce the 2MB megapages test results on rv64 QEMU. On a
>>> HiFive Unleashed, though, a few more tests fail:
> [ ... ]
>
>>> - One of the heapshrink tests fails ("Heap did not shrink")
>>>
>>> # LD_PRELOAD="obj64/libhugetlbfs_privutils.so obj64/libhugetlbfs.so
>>> tests/obj64/libheapshrink.so" HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes
>>> HUGETLB_MORECORE=yes tests/obj64/heapshrink
>>> Starting testcase "tests/obj64/heapshrink", pid 753
>>> FAIL Heap did not shrink
>>> #
>>>
>>> Some of these may be related to the top-down mmap work, but there might be
>>> more work to do on actual hardware.
>>
>> I don't think this is related to top-down mmap layout, this test only
>> mmaps a huge page. It might be interesting to see more verbose messages
>> adding HUGETLB_VERBOSE=99 when launching the test.
> Here is the HUGETLB_VERBOSE=99 output from the above heapshrink test on an
> FU540:
>
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Found pagesize 2048 kB
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Parsed kernel version: [5] . [2] . [0] [pre-release: 6]
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Feature private_reservations is present in this kernel
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Feature noreserve_safe is present in this kernel
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Feature map_hugetlb is present in this kernel
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Kernel has MAP_PRIVATE reservations. Disabling heap prefaulting.
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Kernel supports MAP_HUGETLB
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: HUGETLB_SHARE=0, sharing disabled
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: HUGETLB_NO_RESERVE=no, reservations enabled
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: No segments were appropriate for remapping
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: setup_morecore(): heapaddr = 0x2aaac00000
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: hugetlbfs_morecore(1052672) = ...
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: heapbase = 0x2aaac00000, heaptop = 0x2aaac00000, mapsize = 0, delta=1052672
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Attempting to map 2097152 bytes
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: ... = 0x2aaac00000
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: hugetlbfs_morecore(0) = ...
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: heapbase = 0x2aaac00000, heaptop = 0x2aaad01000, mapsize = 200000, delta=-1044480
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: ... = 0x2aaad01000
> Starting testcase "tests/obj64/heapshrink", pid 86
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: hugetlbfs_morecore(33558528) = ...
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: heapbase = 0x2aaac00000, heaptop = 0x2aaad01000, mapsize = 200000, delta=32514048
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: Attempting to map 33554432 bytes
> libhugetlbfs [(none):86]: INFO: ... = 0x2aaad01000
> FAIL Heap did not shrink
>
>
> This is with this hugepage configuration:
>
> # /usr/local/bin/hugeadm --pool-list
> Size Minimum Current Maximum Default
> 2097152 64 64 64 *
> #
>

Ok thanks for that, but it does not say much :)

While trying to understand why it may fail on HW, I actually failed to
reproduce the results on qemu (I did not
check the results for v3 and I recently switched from yocto to buildroot
so I lost my configuration...).

What configuration do you use to reproduce the results on qemu ?

FYI, while playing around, I noticed that with qemu v4.0.0,
icache_hygiene stalls whereas with
v3.1.0, it does not but I did not investigate though.

Thanks,

Alex


> - Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-07 18:49    [W:0.046 / U:10.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site