On 3 Jul 2025, at 2:06, Aboorva Devarajan wrote: > From: Donet Tom <[email protected]> > > The split_huge_page_test fails on systems with a 64KB base page size. > This is because the order of a 2MB huge page is different: > > On 64KB systems, the order is 5. > > On 4KB systems, it's 9. > > The test currently assumes a maximum huge page order of 9, which is only > valid for 4KB base page systems. On systems with 64KB pages, attempting > to split huge pages beyond their actual order (5) causes the test to fail. > > In this patch, we calculate the huge page order based on the system's base > page size. With this change, the tests now run successfully on both 64KB > and 4KB page size systems. > > Fixes: fa6c02315f745 ("mm: huge_memory: a new debugfs interface for splitting > THP tests") > Signed-off-by: Donet Tom <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Aboorva Devarajan <[email protected]> > --- > .../selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c | 23 ++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c > index aa7400ed0e99..38296a758330 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/split_huge_page_test.c > @@ -514,6 +514,15 @@ void split_thp_in_pagecache_to_order_at(size_t fd_size, > const char *fs_loc, > } > } > > +static unsigned int get_order(unsigned int pages) > +{ > + unsigned int order = 0; > + > + while ((1U << order) < pages) > + order++; > + return order; > +} > + > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > int i; > @@ -523,6 +532,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > const char *fs_loc; > bool created_tmp; > int offset; > + unsigned int max_order; > > ksft_print_header(); > > @@ -534,32 +544,33 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > if (argc > 1) > optional_xfs_path = argv[1]; > > - ksft_set_plan(1+8+1+9+9+8*4+2); > - > pagesize = getpagesize(); > pageshift = ffs(pagesize) - 1; > pmd_pagesize = read_pmd_pagesize(); > if (!pmd_pagesize) > ksft_exit_fail_msg("Reading PMD pagesize failed\n"); > > + max_order = get_order(pmd_pagesize/pagesize);
pmd_pagesize/pagesize is reused below, a tmp variable would be good. > + ksft_set_plan(1+(max_order-1)+1+max_order+max_order+(max_order-1)*4+2); > + > fd_size = 2 * pmd_pagesize; > > split_pmd_zero_pages(); > > - for (i = 0; i < 9; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < max_order; i++) > if (i != 1) > split_pmd_thp_to_order(i); > > split_pte_mapped_thp(); > - for (i = 0; i < 9; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < max_order; i++) > split_file_backed_thp(i); > > created_tmp = prepare_thp_fs(optional_xfs_path, fs_loc_template, > &fs_loc); > - for (i = 8; i >= 0; i--) > + for (i = (max_order-1); i >= 0; i--) > split_thp_in_pagecache_to_order_at(fd_size, fs_loc, i, -1); > > - for (i = 0; i < 9; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < max_order; i++) > for (offset = 0; > offset < pmd_pagesize / pagesize; > offset += MAX(pmd_pagesize / pagesize / 4, 1 << i)) With the change to get_order() proposed by David and ksft_set_plan() simplification, Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <[email protected]> Best Regards, Yan, Zi
