Add tests for NUMA memory policy binding and NUMA aware allocation in
guest_memfd. This extends the existing selftests by adding proper
validation for:
- KVM GMEM set_policy and get_policy() vm_ops functionality using
mbind() and get_mempolicy()
- NUMA policy application before and after memory allocation
These tests help ensure NUMA support for guest_memfd works correctly.
Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
.../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 122 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
index 90f03f00cb04..c46cef2a7cd7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
@@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ pgste-option = $(call try-run, echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | \
$(CC) -Werror -Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste -x c - -o "$$TMP",-Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste)
LDLIBS += -ldl
+LDLIBS += -lnuma
LDFLAGS += -pthread $(no-pie-option) $(pgste-option)
LIBKVM_C := $(filter %.c,$(LIBKVM))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
index b3ca6737f304..9640d04ec293 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
+#include <numa.h>
+#include <numaif.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
@@ -19,6 +21,7 @@
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
+#include <sys/syscall.h>
#include "kvm_util.h"
#include "test_util.h"
@@ -72,6 +75,122 @@ static void test_mmap_supported(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "munmap() should succeed.");
}
+#define TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES() \
+ TEST_REQUIRE(numa_available() != -1 && numa_max_node() >= 1)
+
+static void test_mbind(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
+{
+ unsigned long nodemask = 1; /* nid: 0 */
+ unsigned long maxnode = 8;
+ unsigned long get_nodemask;
+ int get_policy;
+ char *mem;
+ int ret;
+
+ TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES();
+
+ mem = mmap(NULL, total_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(mem != MAP_FAILED, "mmap for mbind test should succeed");
+
+ /* Test MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, mem, page_size * 2, MPOL_INTERLEAVE,
+ &nodemask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind with INTERLEAVE to node 0 should succeed");
+ ret = syscall(__NR_get_mempolicy, &get_policy, &get_nodemask,
+ maxnode, mem, MPOL_F_ADDR);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret && get_policy == MPOL_INTERLEAVE && get_nodemask == nodemask,
+ "Policy should be MPOL_INTERLEAVE and nodes match");
+
+ /* Test basic MPOL_BIND policy */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, mem + page_size * 2, page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND,
+ &nodemask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind with MPOL_BIND to node 0 should succeed");
+ ret = syscall(__NR_get_mempolicy, &get_policy, &get_nodemask,
+ maxnode, mem + page_size * 2, MPOL_F_ADDR);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret && get_policy == MPOL_BIND && get_nodemask == nodemask,
+ "Policy should be MPOL_BIND and nodes match");
+
+ /* Test MPOL_DEFAULT policy */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, mem, total_size, MPOL_DEFAULT, NULL, 0, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind with MPOL_DEFAULT should succeed");
+ ret = syscall(__NR_get_mempolicy, &get_policy, &get_nodemask,
+ maxnode, mem, MPOL_F_ADDR);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret && get_policy == MPOL_DEFAULT && get_nodemask == 0,
+ "Policy should be MPOL_DEFAULT and nodes zero");
+
+ /* Test with invalid policy */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, mem, page_size, 999, &nodemask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
+ "mbind with invalid policy should fail with EINVAL");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT(munmap(mem, total_size) == 0, "munmap should succeed");
+}
+
+static void test_numa_allocation(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
+{
+ unsigned long node0_mask = 1; /* Node 0 */
+ unsigned long node1_mask = 2; /* Node 1 */
+ unsigned long maxnode = 8;
+ void *pages[4];
+ int status[4];
+ char *mem;
+ int ret, i;
+
+ TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES();
+
+ /* Clean slate: deallocate all file space, if any */
+ ret = fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, total_size);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) should succeed");
+
+ mem = mmap(NULL, total_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(mem != MAP_FAILED, "mmap should succeed");
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+ pages[i] = (char *)mem + page_size * i;
+
+ /* Set NUMA policy after allocation */
+ memset(mem, 0xaa, page_size);
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, pages[0], page_size, MPOL_BIND, &node0_mask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind after allocation page 0 to node 0 should succeed");
+ ret = fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, page_size);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) should succeed");
+
+ /* Set NUMA policy before allocation */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, pages[0], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node1_mask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind page 0, 1 to node 1 should succeed");
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, pages[2], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node0_mask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind page 2, 3 to node 0 should succeed");
+ memset(mem, 0xaa, total_size);
+
+ /* Validate if pages are allocated on specified NUMA nodes */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_move_pages, 0, 4, pages, NULL, status, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret >= 0, "move_pages should succeed for status check");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[0] == 1, "Page 0 should be allocated on node 1");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[1] == 1, "Page 1 should be allocated on node 1");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[2] == 0, "Page 2 should be allocated on node 0");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[3] == 0, "Page 3 should be allocated on node 0");
+
+ /* Punch hole for all pages */
+ ret = fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, total_size);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) should succeed");
+
+ /* Change NUMA policy nodes and reallocate */
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, pages[0], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node0_mask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind page 0, 1 to node 0 should succeed");
+ ret = syscall(__NR_mbind, pages[2], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node1_mask, maxnode, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "mbind page 2, 3 to node 1 should succeed");
+ memset(mem, 0xaa, total_size);
+
+ ret = syscall(__NR_move_pages, 0, 4, pages, NULL, status, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret >= 0, "move_pages should succeed after reallocation");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[0] == 0, "Page 0 should be allocated on node 0");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[1] == 0, "Page 1 should be allocated on node 0");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[2] == 1, "Page 2 should be allocated on node 1");
+ TEST_ASSERT(status[3] == 1, "Page 3 should be allocated on node 1");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT(munmap(mem, total_size) == 0, "munmap should succeed");
+}
+
static sigjmp_buf jmpbuf;
void fault_sigbus_handler(int signum)
{
@@ -286,6 +405,8 @@ static void test_guest_memfd(unsigned long vm_type)
if (flags & GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_MMAP) {
test_mmap_supported(fd, page_size, total_size);
test_fault_overflow(fd, page_size, total_size);
+ test_mbind(fd, page_size, total_size);
+ test_numa_allocation(fd, page_size, total_size);
} else {
test_mmap_not_supported(fd, page_size, total_size);
}
--
2.43.0On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Shivank Garg wrote:
> Add tests for NUMA memory policy binding and NUMA aware allocation in
> guest_memfd. This extends the existing selftests by adding proper
> validation for:
> - KVM GMEM set_policy and get_policy() vm_ops functionality using
> mbind() and get_mempolicy()
> - NUMA policy application before and after memory allocation
>
> These tests help ensure NUMA support for guest_memfd works correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
> .../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> index 90f03f00cb04..c46cef2a7cd7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ pgste-option = $(call try-run, echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | \
> $(CC) -Werror -Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste -x c - -o "$$TMP",-Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste)
>
> LDLIBS += -ldl
> +LDLIBS += -lnuma
Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on
any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is
trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers
and build bots.
I'd be especially curious what ARM and RISC-V think, as NUMA is likely a bit less
prevelant there.
> LDFLAGS += -pthread $(no-pie-option) $(pgste-option)
>
> LIBKVM_C := $(filter %.c,$(LIBKVM))
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
> index b3ca6737f304..9640d04ec293 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> +#include <numa.h>
> +#include <numaif.h>
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> @@ -19,6 +21,7 @@
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> +#include <sys/syscall.h>
>
> #include "kvm_util.h"
> #include "test_util.h"
> @@ -72,6 +75,122 @@ static void test_mmap_supported(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
> TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "munmap() should succeed.");
> }
>
> +#define TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES() \
> + TEST_REQUIRE(numa_available() != -1 && numa_max_node() >= 1)
Using TEST_REQUIRE() here will result in skipping the _entire_ test. Ideally
this test would use fixtures so that each testcase can run in a child process
and thus can use TEST_REQUIRE(), but that's a conversion for another day.
Easiest thing would probably be to turn this into a common helper and then bail
early.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
index 9640d04ec293..6acb186e5300 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
-#include <numa.h>
#include <numaif.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
@@ -75,9 +74,6 @@ static void test_mmap_supported(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "munmap() should succeed.");
}
-#define TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES() \
- TEST_REQUIRE(numa_available() != -1 && numa_max_node() >= 1)
-
static void test_mbind(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
{
unsigned long nodemask = 1; /* nid: 0 */
@@ -87,7 +83,8 @@ static void test_mbind(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
char *mem;
int ret;
- TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES();
+ if (!is_multi_numa_node_system())
+ return;
mem = mmap(NULL, total_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
TEST_ASSERT(mem != MAP_FAILED, "mmap for mbind test should succeed");
@@ -136,7 +133,8 @@ static void test_numa_allocation(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
char *mem;
int ret, i;
- TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES();
+ if (!is_multi_numa_node_system())
+ return;
/* Clean slate: deallocate all file space, if any */
ret = fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, total_size);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
index 23a506d7eca3..d7051607e6bf 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
#include <sys/eventfd.h>
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
+#include <numa.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include "kvm_util_arch.h"
@@ -633,6 +634,11 @@ static inline bool is_smt_on(void)
return false;
}
+static inline bool is_multi_numa_node_system(void)
+{
+ return numa_available() != -1 && numa_max_node() >= 1;
+}
+
void vm_create_irqchip(struct kvm_vm *vm);
static inline int __vm_create_guest_memfd(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t size,
On 25.09.25 23:35, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Shivank Garg wrote:
>> Add tests for NUMA memory policy binding and NUMA aware allocation in
>> guest_memfd. This extends the existing selftests by adding proper
>> validation for:
>> - KVM GMEM set_policy and get_policy() vm_ops functionality using
>> mbind() and get_mempolicy()
>> - NUMA policy application before and after memory allocation
>>
>> These tests help ensure NUMA support for guest_memfd works correctly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
>> .../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
>> index 90f03f00cb04..c46cef2a7cd7 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
>> @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ pgste-option = $(call try-run, echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | \
>> $(CC) -Werror -Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste -x c - -o "$$TMP",-Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste)
>>
>> LDLIBS += -ldl
>> +LDLIBS += -lnuma
>
> Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on
> any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is
> trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers
> and build bots.
>
> I'd be especially curious what ARM and RISC-V think, as NUMA is likely a bit less
> prevelant there.
We unconditionally use it in the mm tests for ksm and migration tests,
so it's not particularly odd to require it here as well.
What we do with liburing in mm selftests is to detect presence at
compile time and essentially make the tests behave differently based on
availability (see check_config.sh).
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.09.25 23:35, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Shivank Garg wrote:
>>> Add tests for NUMA memory policy binding and NUMA aware allocation in
>>> guest_memfd. This extends the existing selftests by adding proper
>>> validation for:
>>> - KVM GMEM set_policy and get_policy() vm_ops functionality using
>>> mbind() and get_mempolicy()
>>> - NUMA policy application before and after memory allocation
>>>
>>> These tests help ensure NUMA support for guest_memfd works correctly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
>>> .../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
>>> index 90f03f00cb04..c46cef2a7cd7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
>>> @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ pgste-option = $(call try-run, echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | \
>>> $(CC) -Werror -Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste -x c - -o "$$TMP",-Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste)
>>> LDLIBS += -ldl
>>> +LDLIBS += -lnuma
>>
>> Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on
>> any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is
>> trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers
>> and build bots.
>>
>> I'd be especially curious what ARM and RISC-V think, as NUMA is likely a bit less
>> prevelant there.
>
> We unconditionally use it in the mm tests for ksm and migration tests, so it's not particularly odd to require it here as well.
>
> What we do with liburing in mm selftests is to detect presence at compile time and essentially make the tests behave differently based on availability (see check_config.sh).
>
I have an alternative that drops libnuma entirely.
If this approach looks reasonable, could we potentially factor these out into a
common test utility for other selftests that currently depend on libnuma?
What are your thoughts on this?
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
index c46cef2a7cd7..90f03f00cb04 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
@@ -275,7 +275,6 @@ pgste-option = $(call try-run, echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | \
$(CC) -Werror -Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste -x c - -o "$$TMP",-Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste)
LDLIBS += -ldl
-LDLIBS += -lnuma
LDFLAGS += -pthread $(no-pie-option) $(pgste-option)
LIBKVM_C := $(filter %.c,$(LIBKVM))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
index 9640d04ec293..12ce91950c44 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c
@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
-#include <numa.h>
-#include <numaif.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
@@ -75,9 +73,6 @@ static void test_mmap_supported(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
TEST_ASSERT(!ret, "munmap() should succeed.");
}
-#define TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES() \
- TEST_REQUIRE(numa_available() != -1 && numa_max_node() >= 1)
-
static void test_mbind(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
{
unsigned long nodemask = 1; /* nid: 0 */
@@ -87,7 +82,8 @@ static void test_mbind(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
char *mem;
int ret;
- TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES();
+ if (!is_multi_numa_node_system())
+ return;
mem = mmap(NULL, total_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
TEST_ASSERT(mem != MAP_FAILED, "mmap for mbind test should succeed");
@@ -136,7 +132,8 @@ static void test_numa_allocation(int fd, size_t page_size, size_t total_size)
char *mem;
int ret, i;
- TEST_REQUIRE_NUMA_MULTIPLE_NODES();
+ if (!is_multi_numa_node_system())
+ return;
/* Clean slate: deallocate all file space, if any */
ret = fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, total_size);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
index 23a506d7eca3..ba4c316f4fef 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
#include "linux/list.h"
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/kvm.h>
+#include <linux/mempolicy.h>
#include "linux/rbtree.h"
#include <linux/types.h>
@@ -20,6 +21,7 @@
#include <sys/eventfd.h>
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
+#include <sys/syscall.h>
#include <pthread.h>
@@ -633,6 +635,50 @@ static inline bool is_smt_on(void)
return false;
}
+#include <dirent.h>
+static int numa_max_node(void)
+{
+ DIR *d;
+ struct dirent *de;
+ int max_node = 0;
+
+ d = opendir("/sys/devices/system/node");
+ if (!d) {
+ /* No NUMA support or no nodes found, assume single node */
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ while ((de = readdir(d)) != NULL) {
+ int node_id;
+ char *endptr;
+
+ if (strncmp(de->d_name, "node", 4) != 0)
+ continue;
+
+ node_id = strtol(de->d_name + 4, &endptr, 10);
+ if (*endptr != '\0')
+ continue;
+
+ if (node_id > max_node)
+ max_node = node_id;
+ }
+ closedir(d);
+
+ return max_node;
+}
+
+static int numa_available(void)
+{
+ if (syscall(__NR_get_mempolicy, NULL, NULL, 0, 0, 0) < 0 && (errno == ENOSYS || errno == EPERM))
+ return -1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static inline bool is_multi_numa_node_system(void)
+{
+ return numa_available() != -1 && numa_max_node() >= 1;
+}
+
void vm_create_irqchip(struct kvm_vm *vm);
static inline int __vm_create_guest_memfd(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t size,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 02:35:19PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > LDLIBS += -ldl > > +LDLIBS += -lnuma > > Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on > any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is > trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers > and build bots. Wouldn't it be great if the kselftest build system used something like meson and could work around these little issues without breaking the whole build ? :( Does anyone else think this? Every time I try to build kselftsts I just ignore all the errors the fly by because the one bit I wanted did build properly anyhow. Jason
On 26.09.25 01:04, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 02:35:19PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>> LDLIBS += -ldl >>> +LDLIBS += -lnuma >> >> Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on >> any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is >> trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers >> and build bots. > > Wouldn't it be great if the kselftest build system used something like > meson and could work around these little issues without breaking the > whole build ? :( > > Does anyone else think this? > > Every time I try to build kselftsts I just ignore all the errors the > fly by because the one bit I wanted did build properly anyhow. When I'm in a hurry I even do the same within mm selftests. -- Cheers David / dhildenb
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 02:35:19PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > LDLIBS += -ldl > > > +LDLIBS += -lnuma > > > > Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on > > any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is > > trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers > > and build bots. > > Wouldn't it be great if the kselftest build system used something like > meson and could work around these little issues without breaking the > whole build ? :( > > Does anyone else think this? > > Every time I try to build kselftsts I just ignore all the errors the > fly by because the one bit I wanted did build properly anyhow. I'm indifferent, as I literally never build all of kselftests, I just build KVM selftests. But I'm probably in the minority for the kernel overall.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Shivank Garg wrote:
> > Add tests for NUMA memory policy binding and NUMA aware allocation in
> > guest_memfd. This extends the existing selftests by adding proper
> > validation for:
> > - KVM GMEM set_policy and get_policy() vm_ops functionality using
> > mbind() and get_mempolicy()
> > - NUMA policy application before and after memory allocation
> >
> > These tests help ensure NUMA support for guest_memfd works correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
> > .../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > index 90f03f00cb04..c46cef2a7cd7 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ pgste-option = $(call try-run, echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | \
> > $(CC) -Werror -Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste -x c - -o "$$TMP",-Wl$(comma)--s390-pgste)
> >
> > LDLIBS += -ldl
> > +LDLIBS += -lnuma
>
> Hrm, this is going to be very annoying. I don't have libnuma-dev installed on
> any of my <too many> systems, and I doubt I'm alone. Installing the package is
> trivial, but I'm a little wary of foisting that requirement on all KVM developers
> and build bots.
>
> I'd be especially curious what ARM and RISC-V think, as NUMA is likely a bit less
> prevelant there.
Ugh, and it doesn't play nice with static linking. I haven't tried running on a
NUMA system yet, so maybe it's benign?
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/14/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libnuma.a(affinity.o): in function `affinity_ip':
(.text+0x629): warning: Using 'getaddrinfo' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.