Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] kselftest: mm: remove HPAGE_SIZE and HPAGE_SHIFT macro
From: Zi Yan
Date: Mon Sep 14 2026 - 22:27:12 EST
On Mon Sep 14, 2026 at 3:30 AM EDT, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> HPAGE_SIZE and HPAGE_SHIFT macro is written based on the 4KB PAGE_SIZE.
> When this macro is used in some test, test result would be strange in
> the system where PAGE_SIZE is more then 4KB.
>
> Here is the example with transhuge-stress test with 16KB PAGE_SIZE:
>
> transhuge-stress: allocate 61073 transhuge pages, using 122146 MiB virtual memory and 1908 MiB of ram
> 3.292 s/loop, 0.054 ms/page, 37106.002 MiB/s 2566 succeed, 58507 failed, 2566 different pages
> 0.591 s/loop, 0.010 ms/page, 206850.792 MiB/s 0 succeed, 61073 failed, 0 different pages
> 0.527 s/loop, 0.009 ms/page, 231895.107 MiB/s 0 succeed, 61073 failed, 0 different pages
> 0.527 s/loop, 0.009 ms/page, 231839.704 MiB/s 0 succeed, 61073 failed, 0 different pages
> 0.528 s/loop, 0.009 ms/page, 231544.782 MiB/s 0 succeed, 61073 failed, 0 different pages
> 0.528 s/loop, 0.009 ms/page, 231462.074 MiB/s 0 succeed, 61073 failed, 0 different pages
> 0.527 s/loop, 0.009 ms/page, 231770.300 MiB/s 0 succeed, 61073 failed, 0 different pages
> ...
> ok 1 Completed
>
> Remove the HPAGE_SIZE and HPAGE_SHIFT macro and introduce pmd_pshift()
> helper to get the HPAGE_SHIFT properly. For HPAGE_SIZE, use pre-existing
> helper, pmd_psize().
>
> Also, run the KSM_MERGE_TIME_HUGE_PAGES test with a size of 512 MiB,
> which is the least common multiple of the PMD sizes for 4 KiB, 16 KiB,
> and 64 KiB base pages. Since allocate_transhuge() allocates mappings in
> PMD-sized units, the test may fail with the previous size of 100 MiB,
> which is not a multiple of the PMD size when the base page size is
> 16 KiB or 64 KiB.
>
> After this patch, output of transhuge-stress:
>
> transhuge-stress: allocate 3817 transhuge pages, using 122146 MiB virtual memory and 119 MiB of ram
> 2.558 s/loop, 0.670 ms/page, 47755.759 MiB/s 2585 succeed, 1232 failed, 2585 different pages
> 2.640 s/loop, 0.692 ms/page, 46268.432 MiB/s 2585 succeed, 1232 failed, 2585 different pages
> 2.635 s/loop, 0.690 ms/page, 46360.298 MiB/s 2585 succeed, 1232 failed, 2585 different pages
> 2.782 s/loop, 0.729 ms/page, 43899.795 MiB/s 2616 succeed, 1201 failed, 2616 different pages
> 2.692 s/loop, 0.705 ms/page, 45380.876 MiB/s 2627 succeed, 1190 failed, 2627 different pages
> 2.612 s/loop, 0.684 ms/page, 46765.812 MiB/s 2628 succeed, 1189 failed, 2628 different pages
> 2.683 s/loop, 0.703 ms/page, 45520.990 MiB/s 2630 succeed, 1187 failed, 2630 different pages
> 2.727 s/loop, 0.714 ms/page, 44789.321 MiB/s 2631 succeed, 1186 failed, 2631 different pages
> ...
> ok 1 Completed
>
> Suggested-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c | 11 ++++++--
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_tests.c | 16 +++++++-----
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh | 4 +--
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/transhuge-stress.c | 25 +++++++++++--------
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.h | 9 +++----
> 6 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> index b724d62d2b75..eee29ef88cb2 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/guard-regions.c
> @@ -2195,14 +2195,21 @@ TEST_F(guard_regions, pagemap_scan)
> TEST_F(guard_regions, collapse)
> {
> const unsigned long page_size = self->page_size;
> - const unsigned long size = 2 * HPAGE_SIZE;
> - const unsigned long num_pages = size / page_size;
> + const uint64_t hpage_size = pmd_psize();
Is it better to use pmd_page_size/pmd_page_shift instead of
hpage_size/hpage_shift for clarification? Maybe in a follow-up patch if
you think it is reasonable.
Otherwise, with David's concern addressed, feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi