Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 22:50:23 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@intel.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] lib: add test for for_each_numa_{cpu,hop_mask}()
Message-ID: <ZEi7n4ZJgF2o8Ps9@yury-ThinkPad>
References: <20230420051946.7463-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20230420051946.7463-8-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <xhsmh8rehkxzz.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xhsmh8rehkxzz.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Valentin,

Thanks for review!

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 19/04/23 22:19, Yury Norov wrote:
> > +	for (node = 0; node < sched_domains_numa_levels; node++) {
> > +		unsigned int hop, c = 0;
> > +
> > +		rcu_read_lock();
> > +		for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask)
> > +			expect_eq_uint(cpumask_local_spread(c++, node), cpu);
> > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> > +	}
> 
> I'm not fond of the export of sched_domains_numa_levels, especially
> considering it's just there for tests.
> 
> Furthermore, is there any value is testing parity with
> cpumask_local_spread()?

I wanted to emphasize that new NUMA-aware functions are coherent with
each other, just like find_nth_bit() is coherent with find_next_bit().

But all that coherence looks important only in non-NUMA case, because
client code may depend on fact that next CPU is never less than current.
This doesn't hold for NUMA iterators anyways...

> Rather, shouldn't we check that using this API does
> yield CPUs of increasing NUMA distance?
> 
> Something like
> 
>         for_each_node(node) {
>                 unsigned int prev_cpu, hop = 0;
> 
>                 cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
>                 prev_cpu = cpu;
> 
>                 rcu_read_lock();
> 
>                 /* Assert distance is monotonically increasing */
>                 for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask) {
>                         expect_ge_uint(cpu_to_node(cpu), cpu_to_node(prev_cpu));
>                         prev_cpu = cpu;
>                 }
> 
>                 rcu_read_unlock();
>         }

Your version of the test looks more straightforward. I need to think
for more, but it looks like I can take it in v3.

Thanks,
Yury