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 C2DB1CA5FCE for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 06:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4hypq112drz2yjw; Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:08:29 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="2607:f8b0:4864:20::445" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1791180509; cv=none; b=nOJggWDYGS3/c+vxKPu0E+hx1qJJSaVek9wQAZSXp1aoBGXG9F3bdC79QPfqIQGEkYop8Ye0luKC1vFx51/8OJmqNw2F8thJay3cAg0lPl5U0CXQCr/aOhjO+6jLHNIp3IX/54kGr6L/hggsDCSU2eFt+3yNpZBN55VbyWuNE+6mofKPCIj7/zYwVMWT48upsrw7B+8S0LblTpJbScdNVAZHU1DZHIThch9ymih/4lTacS9eewSYVQmtwksFMb4zdhzXN9bc96bwRE8TjC4D6wjC/nPYchodBvSQkWJESHaCx3a9yl1PK+HlrTwPWheZgzQ5siXnRXIrkc16tFQUrw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1791180509; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=IITz2XbwrAyv27W8DNZJyeO2sE+zaKLd0NzyMXZbO5I=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=eYI/DzvtmY3RYk3aeXmLt/UYXpJr8rOXMGYr7s+r05z32woYN1oT6kpqAMsGhztxHTNr6hQ9SLcwYAUXJK7ltWC3WbFiuJFIueWQZ49LMcQmAQfLOtSY9OEvXQ7r12XJs3zrdvzjmG1BA4VWTVkHrC4pq3QyBku6ztL5SsjTI4OX+ONC5WfG5e5aIZ4DSOT92hiUigjMhX7koQkoJu7L6eh/+gA96orQc78i3DBKHmwH1aTfmKWE2DLiUAiQVpiGhddsuYYiP/r6JB4lOaiPTM8u4ka5DhXn4rbgijjscPLXUpWkKSTu9M805SlkZC0difjZWSRdaqxfFV8jdw6qmQ== 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=S8HNolEO; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::445; helo=mail-pf1-x445.google.com; envelope-from=32d7dagykdl8xjfsohlttlqj.htrqnsz2uuh-ij0qnxyx.t4qfgx.twl@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=S8HNolEO; 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::445; helo=mail-pf1-x445.google.com; envelope-from=32d7dagykdl8xjfsohlttlqj.htrqnsz2uuh-ij0qnxyx.t4qfgx.twl@flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mail-pf1-x445.google.com (mail-pf1-x445.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::445]) (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 4hyppz3lfyz2yDm for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:08:26 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x445.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-88b9d8c9e55so1186857b3a.1 for ; Sun, 04 Oct 2026 23:08:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1791180504; x=1791785304; darn=lists.ozlabs.org; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=IITz2XbwrAyv27W8DNZJyeO2sE+zaKLd0NzyMXZbO5I=; b=S8HNolEOObFvVR3wFINM2hi++yH6exrfKooEkVf/tLFJwRAC5kHy8MS7egPoWS4lVt 4GgS1Wjilzu52q9u3MSfS2IV2M6nEqfW3WHTbE18ueCtqXR7HSCoeKnRjXPYEcZsqyJl 9ikOmrja72DrSRKyHvlW7Yp5ljuOx+8Ltq0ySiy0ejuJGB+6lYsMnX0t4cVTB1IVx2A0 mpFeLirX+lt6AB4oCY1XdPxb6A7rVXzy7WcXnZfVRpuFnSL4kLrBVCLPZ+wq+eqBoP30 KPLObqCoEcItrqnYglW6CgAv+XqEMLjxhH9WrA5H9kPS84mgFVPvNt+5d+c7bEpHFJe/ t3uA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791180504; x=1791785304; h=content-type: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:content-type; bh=IITz2XbwrAyv27W8DNZJyeO2sE+zaKLd0NzyMXZbO5I=; b=aP7Rrp2PE6vySxnVY7/1tMyA6wImhGOw/UTFDVmtunTJ+lC/x9BQI68G+s7TU0dU3D MbtxNMeW1AUH+FV8LC/SXv9F2m2lUcxYaezBhzGUF2d7bVwTKAXE8+iHU3lgVD7nZ9nF B6KJ6h9vtzdaOC9QCU3MOonWuPyOgYgmEUsqkHQqYL9aCb06RWlaNZtiJBKcOoO+WygQ JpKA+Tq8pL8PqJ8HcgFRLiSFUUKOPYbYBtRyuouFWP2dlHcbtau0Jy52ig/EXf8AsTrX JxdmbsYXGnSC2GYemxhoo1s4pxCwDHt5CvraIW87c5mitz3sbLINpj2i9zJRwJh3/XPT NisA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBz3QDRXPcfBsdNm4VIusZbHbxRmlLO42s0110Kmai36/67XJDZNG9GCMefBEVvWIfC58X65MBtXSlq9vaM=@lists.ozlabs.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++menkVUlzxz/RHI+I3zm1EEfA9fTxkMZg97M1X4SuUIYrFcrZbh z/FHQa1LOCPkPXXgnA2/quPBzQLvBqhM9lwgCDRfgsYH4BVXI8HbEElnBJM4/D+avhrAQbJOPR4 Nz4RRfQ== X-Received: from pfbga7.prod.google.com ([2002:a05:6a00:6207:b0:87f:22a2:2139]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a05:6a00:1da4:b0:884:e190:1b94 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-887fe2e5855mr8812734b3a.34.1791180504209; Sun, 04 Oct 2026 23:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 23:08:23 -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 v5 0/9] KVM: selftests: add powerpc support From: Sean Christopherson To: Ritesh Harjani Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , Christophe Leroy , Anushree Mathur , Venkat Rao Bagalkote , Harsh Prateek Bora , Madhavan Srinivasan , Shrikanth Hegde , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Mon, Oct 05, 2026, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > I think I'd even prefer to take on an #ifdef (to scope it to PPC if necessary) > > over open coding TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON. > > Sure, so will add this check for kvm_create_max_vcpus() > > #ifdef __powerpc64__ > TEST_REQUIRE(!is_pseries_lpar()); > #endif Or maybe to avoid too many ifdefs, something like: static inline kvm_is_ppc_pseries_lpar(void) { /* * Comment about how this setup has unique limitations and isn't * compatible with tests that create many VMs and/or vCPUs. */ #ifdef __powerpc64___ return !access("/proc/device-tree/rtas/ibm,hypertas-functions", F_OK); #else return false; #endif } Probably redundant naming to some extent, but having "ppc" in there would make it super obvious it's a PPC-only check. > Actually I was thinking we may as well use the same check for now for > skipping hardware_disable_test on pseries. Because there also we suffer > from the same resource limitation. Let me know if that sounds ok to you > or do you want us to skip kvm_create_max_vcpus() only for now, since it > is part of TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON? > > > LoongArch open coded its full test list > > for some reason, and in less than a year it has started missing out on new common > > tests. > > > >> (& maybe few others like vm_types_test) from that in v6. > > > > What's wrong with VM types test? That one really should Just Work on all > > architectures. It doesn't run on LoongArch, but I assume that's > > oversight? > > So the test doesn't fail (it gets skipped). However this cap > "KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES" is only supported on x86 and since I was planning to > open code all common tests, hence I thought I may as well not add this > in the first place. /facepalm I completely forgot KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES is x86-only. FWIW, I'd still say use TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON if possible. > BTW, based on this discussion, I think I will re-arrange the patches in > the following order and send a v7. (The Makefile.kvm changes will only > get added after the main patch which adds powerpc support). > > cfabdb049bd7 2026-10-05 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] (HEAD -> feat-ppc-kvm-selftests-new-sean-v7) KVM: selftests: Skip hardware_disable_test on pseries > 2b51fab87b95 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: PPC: selftests: Skip idle-page check when running nested on pseries LPAR > f5d1de1be4e9 2026-10-05 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Skip kvm_create_max_vcpus on pseries > e45ba15cea25 2026-10-03 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: PPC: selftests: Add helper for checking if running nested Doesn't this one need to come first? Or is this different than pseries LPAR? > 178c9bca0e20 2026-09-22 [Nicholas Piggin] KVM: PPC: selftests: add support for powerpc > 22320662e776 2026-09-11 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Fix kvm_create_max_vcpus test for powerpc This should come before "add support for powerpc", and should have a shortlog more like "Skip max vCPU IDs test on PPC with " > 11b5712b213b 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Move memslot_perf_test off the 256M ELF load address > 63c900860b5f 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Don't limit LE dirty-bitmap bitops to s390x > > > Please let me know if this sounds ok? Ya, works for me!