Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] KVM: PPC: Book3s HV: Hold LPIDs in an unsigned long

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

"Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon Aug 7, 2023 at 11:45 AM AEST, Jordan Niethe wrote:
>> The LPID register is 32 bits long. The host keeps the lpids for each
>> guest in an unsigned word struct kvm_arch. Currently, LPIDs are already
>> limited by mmu_lpid_bits and KVM_MAX_NESTED_GUESTS_SHIFT.
>>
>> The nestedv2 API returns a 64 bit "Guest ID" to be used be the L1 host
>> for each L2 guest. This value is used as an lpid, e.g. it is the
>> parameter used by H_RPT_INVALIDATE. To minimize needless special casing
>> it makes sense to keep this "Guest ID" in struct kvm_arch::lpid.
>>
>> This means that struct kvm_arch::lpid is too small so prepare for this
>> and make it an unsigned long. This is not a problem for the KVM-HV and
>> nestedv1 cases as their lpid values are already limited to valid ranges
>> so in those contexts the lpid can be used as an unsigned word safely as
>> needed.
>>
>> In the PAPR, the H_RPT_INVALIDATE pid/lpid parameter is already
>> specified as an unsigned long so change pseries_rpt_invalidate() to
>> match that.  Update the callers of pseries_rpt_invalidate() to also take
>> an unsigned long if they take an lpid value.
>
> I don't suppose it would be worth having an lpid_t.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c
>> index 4adff4f1896d..229f0a1ffdd4 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c
>> @@ -886,10 +886,10 @@ int kvmppc_xive_attach_escalation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u8 prio,
>>  
>>  	if (single_escalation)
>>  		name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "kvm-%d-%d",
>> -				 vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid, xc->server_num);
>> +				 (unsigned int)vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid, xc->server_num);
>>  	else
>>  		name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "kvm-%d-%d-%d",
>> -				 vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid, xc->server_num, prio);
>> +				 (unsigned int)vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid, xc->server_num, prio);
>>  	if (!name) {
>>  		pr_err("Failed to allocate escalation irq name for queue %d of VCPU %d\n",
>>  		       prio, xc->server_num);
>
> I would have thought you'd keep the type and change the format.

Yeah. Don't we risk having ambigious names by discarding the high bits?
Not sure that would be a bug per se, but it could be confusing.

cheers