From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E337BCD8C9D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:54:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gbqys39JYz3bqh; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:54:13 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1781200453; cv=none; b=U1RyFyyVb5uctoVY2J3z8FwP0YdapTQVlauEJ4fhbJk6VKDwjXKVVWMKxv+5zSf5nCdNR/rNhoGEgzAabWm6jkV2bzC2VgCu+HnfB65SbHYQWg2FSUm6leVBnN6W34EM8yBody/PgEo8AgwhhJ94M8M6eI1XhxLnGIOYi56Mu65tcrZsOml0on6nnzkRGnqZq0rbobzxtawHPxYpK8r3iEMYZZI+01U/qxzKsWjXUNYEpvHd7VK+A/Gy6L8L9Bc8VUSRM2fnfhOXj9Gw7krlUcNUjG2p+r9dQ7VbFcKM7SSC1Bj/LkbjsJAzgNHaZLCw0RnjQJqQfOhkfmmfi2+nZA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1781200453; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=IOJyOW3TzN5ixErWyO0JSYunyAbYlgebTlL8SlVIneA=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=c+cywSaij1jXnZHDQGLT/tmEaDae/8WLyB93qG4fMhdWnC5Pm3+gufVEPPevsunZo4jUGA0YDYL6gAZty8sAYw8tX3108WAEcwx1DgSi2Xr5P1PezUJMR7OQ8whsgW3J4GqjnwKA/JyMe1fJ890ooM1Es6tEF2+9qpNGvzXlZ3dy5WCi3dXL2j1vSOzSyqTvSrA9HNpQ/aP/aGUur1FD+aeYx/ZBo9QozxSjN4an63OCN6U1dj/XSGhVfqYerekgkaxBPTS9/kUnvHPKPnR+UTtCvLC2FNOLbaDKsXk/42STokXfoF/PUIx86EC5eCfnjg9F62H1H+ivwZXyNWak4A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=pQwQhaJk; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a; helo=mail-pl1-x64a.google.com; envelope-from=3qpyqagykddefrnawptbbtyr.pbzyvahkccp-qriyvfgf.bmynof.bet@flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=pQwQhaJk; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a; helo=mail-pl1-x64a.google.com; envelope-from=3qpyqagykddefrnawptbbtyr.pbzyvahkccp-qriyvfgf.bmynof.bet@flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mail-pl1-x64a.google.com (mail-pl1-x64a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gbqyq5JnMz2xl6 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:54:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pl1-x64a.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2bf0b7425bbso2057825ad.0 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:54:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1781200449; x=1781805249; darn=lists.ozlabs.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IOJyOW3TzN5ixErWyO0JSYunyAbYlgebTlL8SlVIneA=; b=pQwQhaJkADlZbRAKdS1JqXUBuQsf//vM3SvD0nxMuhpr7Ex6gYNDdMcGxpX6xeFDvY EkB5PVZKQGeHu04fzJTw/hZGIPv/6pjjXHTDGJmlA1ZDNoDvQD/kEa9hnVChKEABEqMX 3zuju1MXTFlKCYqTHNCIdEU7ZDG8rMyb8MC4alUOANKSfadlN+F+l9HhyQZgxA5dlan1 BF2eWS56nqcVt3wPXL+ovU7VWjSq9wWmF6FUU7jJRA8ED2bqmsfqXDrAN+0tXdmbzl8Y eEz6l0I0i5Rb/X/AVrrTt9crdACJ2TD8ybGdUGx2yF1XR+2npOfqb3+oG9RS8wAn56Kd LCJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1781200449; x=1781805249; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IOJyOW3TzN5ixErWyO0JSYunyAbYlgebTlL8SlVIneA=; b=p1beKdTaRb00NVqHpP3frYpIq9N+z2DzUz5K4tVcREcqlgeLYEjb9e8BYOZCzzgNx9 UI+JzuoL5RBuGI+WzbSCQKBGGFjhcjVbifL91FKRIfQ3qV33eCVzMgAIbsnZmOLbXzZr 95GOuZIiHOLjhKoLmalBw4l2Frk3tu0qv8QBbfPaco+jExf8SSGo91MAF6ajVseyLQE7 Jpz+bkjhnUgRxkuCTVltBhNujqHA9Ucgq+cjnb0gOTjiFUBiV2Ndf2Y8uQITShXgCS5o hbloR+jr4eW4oKEWqOJ+Opjx8RVBOELlVNBiKIOG2wigGpn5cKGPiAXebUsNJL9DpwV9 s4LA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+2qfbAyKQM1iRo/ImhNW6GS990nvdnRkjObUPlIm5AAWqYGGg5T8aaIaLigmxgtNha2yraDUBcUl+Kd2o=@lists.ozlabs.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2NM+neFgNFIV0tqNcI19M1TfnCmeOyCnoZTBc0cza5IKI0F2O Ox5/h1YMdOEXaMtPXmIjkGl15uNafvdEQvZf8jJg08lV6LEwcDqYwJmzd23u8vrIdLsu1zRqNzW x0PyXWg== X-Received: from plog3.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:902:8683:b0:2bc:ae34:223a]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:903:1a88:b0:2bf:21e6:baee with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2c2f470dc43mr48152335ad.28.1781200448836; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:54:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 02/10] KVM: selftests: Add aligned guest physical page allocator From: Sean Christopherson To: Ritesh Harjani Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman , Christophe Leroy , Anushree Mathur , Venkat Rao Bagalkote , Harsh Prateek Bora , Ackerley Tng , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , Nicholas Piggin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, Jun 11, 2026, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > Sean Christopherson writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: > >> From: Nicholas Piggin > >> > >> powerpc will require this to allocate MMU tables in guest memory that > >> are larger than guest base page size. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin > >> [Rebased to latest mainline tree] > >> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) > >> --- > >> .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 20 +++++++++-- > >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 33 +++++++++---------- > >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > >> index 3666a8530f31..c515c918c2c9 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > >> @@ -991,8 +991,8 @@ void kvm_gsi_routing_write(struct kvm_vm *vm, struct kvm_irq_routing *routing); > >> const char *exit_reason_str(unsigned int exit_reason); > >> > >> gpa_t vm_phy_page_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, gpa_t min_gpa, u32 memslot); > >> -gpa_t __vm_phy_pages_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t num, gpa_t min_gpa, > >> - u32 memslot, bool protected); > >> +gpa_t __vm_phy_pages_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t num, size_t align, > >> + gpa_t min_gpa, u32 memslot, bool protected); > >> gpa_t vm_alloc_page_table(struct kvm_vm *vm); > >> > >> static inline gpa_t vm_phy_pages_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t num, > >> @@ -1003,10 +1003,24 @@ static inline gpa_t vm_phy_pages_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t num, > >> * protected memory, as the majority of memory for such VMs is > >> * protected, i.e. using shared memory is effectively opt-in. > >> */ > >> - return __vm_phy_pages_alloc(vm, num, min_gpa, memslot, > >> + return __vm_phy_pages_alloc(vm, num, 1, min_gpa, memslot, > >> vm_arch_has_protected_memory(vm)); > >> } > >> > >> +static inline gpa_t vm_phy_pages_alloc_align(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t num, > >> + size_t align, gpa_t min_gpa, > >> + u32 memslot) > > > > Given that the PPC usage is all for naturally aligned allocations, I think it > > makes sense for that to be the API, i.e. have "bool naturally_aligned" instead > > of an arbitrary alignment. > > > > I would still prefer passing an explicit align value to the allocator, > because IMHO that's a useful allocator interface to have. Why? What are the use cases? I can't think of anything that requires multi-page allocations to have specific alignment, all of the cases I can think of require natural alignment. For sub-page allocations, supporting semi-arbitrary alignments makes sense, but I'm not convinced we should try and support that for page-granularity allocations. > However, if we do want to go down this road than I don't have any strong > objection either, since as you mentioned powerpc mostly just needs > natual alignment for it's page table region. So alignment can be > extracted from the region type as you described below, so no need to > pass it all the time. .. > > The bonus is that @min_gpa goes away too. > > powerpc needs min_gpa for it's exception handling pages. see. > > excp_paddr = vm_phy_pages_alloc(vm, excp_pages, 0, > vm->memslots[MEM_REGION_DATA]); > > TEST_ASSERT(excp_paddr == 0, > "Interrupt vectors not allocated at gPA address 0: (0x%lx)", > excp_paddr); > > So, will arch still have an access to the API for passing min_gpa = 0 > for cases like above? Yep, ____vm_phy_pages_alloc() will be globally visible, and I think is quite appropriate in this case since it's more than just specifying a minimum GPA, it's really specifying an _exact_ GPA for the allocation. gpa_t ____vm_phy_pages_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t nr_pages, gpa_t min_gpa, u32 memslot, bool protected, bool naturally_aligned) > > It'll probably take me a few days/weeks, but I'll try get a series posted before > > the 7.2 merge window closes, so that you can build on top to get the PPC selftests > > support landed in 7.3. > > > > Thanks Sean for your help! Yes, landing kvm selftests for powerpc will > be definitely helpful to verify against any kvm regressions. > > BTW, I was thinking whether landing powerpc first will be easier for you > to consider all the API requirements from all users / usecases? But > either way is fine please. I can work on top of your changes too and if > something is missing for powerpc, we can add / modify on top, once your > series is finished. One idea would be for me to include the PPC support in the series; it's "just" a patch or two on top, albeit one pretty big patch. > >> @@ -2039,23 +2039,22 @@ gpa_t __vm_phy_pages_alloc(struct kvm_vm *vm, size_t num, > >> TEST_ASSERT(!protected || region->protected_phy_pages, > >> "Region doesn't support protected memory"); > >> > >> - base = pg = min_gpa >> vm->page_shift; > >> - do { > >> - for (; pg < base + num; ++pg) { > >> - if (!sparsebit_is_set(region->unused_phy_pages, pg)) { > >> - base = pg = sparsebit_next_set(region->unused_phy_pages, pg); > >> - break; > >> + base = min_gpa >> vm->page_shift; > >> +again: > >> + base = (base + align - 1) & ~(align - 1); > >> + for (pg = base; pg < base + num; ++pg) { > >> + if (!sparsebit_is_set(region->unused_phy_pages, pg)) { > >> + base = sparsebit_next_set(region->unused_phy_pages, pg); > >> + if (!base) { > >> + fprintf(stderr, "No guest physical page available, " > >> + "min_gpa: 0x%lx page_size: 0x%x memslot: %u\n", > >> + min_gpa, vm->page_size, memslot); > >> + fputs("---- vm dump ----\n", stderr); > >> + vm_dump(stderr, vm, 2); > >> + abort(); > >> } > >> + goto again; > >> } > >> - } while (pg && pg != base + num); > >> - > >> - if (pg == 0) { > >> - fprintf(stderr, "No guest physical page available, " > >> - "min_gpa: 0x%lx page_size: 0x%x memslot: %u\n", > >> - min_gpa, vm->page_size, memslot); > >> - fputs("---- vm dump ----\n", stderr); > >> - vm_dump(stderr, vm, 2); > >> - abort(); > >> } > > > > This is unnecessary churn. I'm not saying the current code is pretty or anything, > > but unless I'm missing something, this can simply be: > > Not really, we need the base to be aligned everytime, that's why the > goto again loop aligns the base in the new code. Ooh, right, pg needs to be advanced by the aligned number of pages. Ugh, the whole do-while part is bizarre, and AFAICT only "works" by dumb luck. > Plus I feel the above refactoring also simplifies the special handling of pg > == 0 case, which earlier was being handled separately after the loop ends. Yeah, I fiddled with a few other options, but I think I like your approach the most.