From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com (mail-pl1-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D91737475C for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781275466; cv=none; b=M7NRBFCHfLqcMJyvyXnkEUu40rdpzAcU42ND3SFD5nYUe9ksVuijrCIBlvJc9VZbcZgfBVFBqmQGco6+Jzpziu4UGlyCWiUXxYZG4jRsCczvgjQM+N39CjBU0O5i6ge1ilXSL2MHWcJ1KZBMEbNoXkCuDvbW0AVjEvxiASOQtWo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781275466; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8xQFOW87PPfIKh9pXDO1PhGcSGszaXpRVhY1KZyzeS8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References; b=UmJfezlChjwu/jkZYzSUCqHITpR9+HW3udCTF9ModaczgSv/68ZzxgF8h8+i6mWcCRBlPLZjheiYnC+MpjrzxpNUSY6Ha3iKmTEgSBMmBkaSaQ1jaMbn2MthS+hBlAs+EJ/HiNKEAkJZzuyIcwCH8CU1AkkFMb9Juef5kM5oE8w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=oKXVqFSD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="oKXVqFSD" Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2c0aa420401so8159275ad.3 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:44:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1781275465; x=1781880265; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JTJ6LQiVaizRbhp8ioa0/mpPc2OvfEQezfKHZpIfGYU=; b=oKXVqFSDLX4FLiNugW3NGVFIFgJEBmfO21e0SZ9ZCBhe2TQ36KhTOcOymi45zBBU5i lrIW5GKlkbH2WM1EdsGvDT2HPNwL7AI1k1cRGppmUAhk7O7g22W0ylAWYDpIjY9oyfKu /pOYCiFX0BEwas/PLlTESqtSmO9V5CR+8Um+mrEh9qXmokQyUl0uP8EhCUX6dDQLkDex 7AQWNEoQnKJ1YnQ5XvDEnKfaPvhaDHgaWjE4ZokuzYhc76i6bPhv/2ihM3mbTsiygxbK 2aZ3juhe9u2GQigfMvh4PlyENRcMjohugqW+y5WjustIUx/lkFdy6+r8er4PYBh7zakY awgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1781275465; x=1781880265; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JTJ6LQiVaizRbhp8ioa0/mpPc2OvfEQezfKHZpIfGYU=; b=oEWuykalFfudLltPoqoMbJ90oA4o/Krxs3RZVWsEuh/BMxZhsvJBXoSiMflCsfteF3 eSwzyQub91RR/BOzCfcPy0wK+3cOorJkiMXReC4eG4ZHmJLQ1Vp9vz4wvC1m91b54ND0 zN2Mijoz/9lSI7Nd7+f7T3kIFfLuppigZMTFTui8a6CnUBshuM/AqD4Og0Z1o/0nSyL3 qiSjccqHewowdcHXl4osttztBSOd245cTCzX2Swvus55gnaxU5cNmL658EODFNzSZv3K yznvpxP9I5mUGDhLkibdru19G53LhCZDaTlNJWiEOohrCJXEAiZKLt6Tl7EORYAtKwKP 82cw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ9UQuGASfHeb986P3LACU5dos359SFeAy6VqcrCtGjINnTD+SDrlMrK46G6u8fsteAckhfwmZuQu1dZ+94=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzvNjPbaAQxGYCamVJkSOg/7g0q9GwyDlMdZ3x1xwku2X6NKGF5 xl+g/mnHnQE2v9XA8JZoJlYn3a6/E1Fq/ynRm+kaFnI1lj3pqj/ds3sO X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OEd17sB+yxitnvkBX9rCgEUt1NE1ddiVYLCqRFaQo4QuPc1ThwGAbMYuiThzzB pnKrRnsG0hLSdurVlm3G0laVPNITauwEqvODYkJgfp/GsBaWX2VQcJottzoYyloJ2eotv1Pi3jr Eno6E9ZkIsLp6RYtXzy3WkvsX/sREU1pAqIEtc5dBbnj3k+qWxZf1K3tUJQ85/ZCvUbsjgbWx/X NJ6x1ZSamB8tNVJu1v3XtwNtJzk0fwR98bTuMjy3pjVCcZqlFfkbl3fVP7uD7+J5iFPHsDGNEjU z/SnD1cvMgcFDIZbpoCwCiQ0Zvn+jBI2KuKza550a70WjhzHg0EKYvq/ByE+OFmuRLCN3vqitpI ktWbnxvFkVTUkRL040wynGzJI50/JaUQtZA69p3IQ9aeK3s7ydroKp7hCf0aaKqOxM+DtqDQuXk KVIB1l72HdyACRZdeYPF2WDPH3vQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2352:b0:2c2:27be:39a3 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2c41300f817mr36848625ad.29.1781275464660; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pve-server ([49.205.216.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2c432c8becesm23773525ad.56.2026.06.12.07.44.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Sean Christopherson 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 02/10] KVM: selftests: Add aligned guest physical page allocator In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:06:23 +0530 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sean Christopherson writes: > 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. > I agree, that's what I mentioned too, so far all cases we care about, they require natual alignment. So it should be fine. > 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) > Right, Thanks! >> > 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. > That should be ok Sean. I can rebase my changes on top of yours once your series is ready then. I will be on travel next week (OSS Mumbai) and I don't want to stop your patch series due to my late replies for any of the powerpc part. So once your series is ready - I can rebase this series on top of it and it can go as we discussed it earlier - so that we can try and land these for 7.3, if possible. Thanks again for your help :) >> >> @@ -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. Sure then, Thanks! -ritesh