diff mbox series

[gmem] KVM: selftests: Fix gmem conversion tests for multiple vCPUs

Message ID 20231016184737.1027930-1-michael.roth@amd.com
State New
Headers
Series [gmem] KVM: selftests: Fix gmem conversion tests for multiple vCPUs |

Commit Message

Michael Roth Oct. 16, 2023, 6:47 p.m. UTC 
  Currently the private_mem_conversions_test crashes if invoked with the
-n <num_vcpus> option without also specifying multiple memslots via -m.

This is because the current implementation assumes -m is specified and
always sets up the per-vCPU memory with a dedicated memslot for each
vCPU. When -m is not specified, the test skips setting up
memslots/memory for secondary vCPUs.

The current code does seem to try to handle using a single memslot for
multiple vCPUs in some places, e.g. the call-site, but
test_mem_conversions() is missing the important bit of sizing the single
memslot appropriately to handle all the per-vCPU memory. Implement that
handling.

Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
---
 .../kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c        | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Sean Christopherson Oct. 18, 2023, 1:10 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, Michael Roth wrote:
> Currently the private_mem_conversions_test crashes if invoked with the
> -n <num_vcpus> option without also specifying multiple memslots via -m.

Totally a PEBKAC, not a bug ;-)
 
> This is because the current implementation assumes -m is specified and
> always sets up the per-vCPU memory with a dedicated memslot for each
> vCPU. When -m is not specified, the test skips setting up
> memslots/memory for secondary vCPUs.
> 
> The current code does seem to try to handle using a single memslot for
> multiple vCPUs in some places, e.g. the call-site, but
> test_mem_conversions() is missing the important bit of sizing the single
> memslot appropriately to handle all the per-vCPU memory. Implement that
> handling.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
> ---
>  .../kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c        | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> index c04e7d61a585..5eb693fead33 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> @@ -388,10 +388,14 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
>  		gmem_flags = 0;
>  	memfd = vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, memfd_size, gmem_flags);
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
> -		vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
> -			   BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
> -			   KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
> +	if (nr_memslots == 1)
> +		vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA, BASE_DATA_SLOT,
> +			   memfd_size / vm->page_size, KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, 0);
> +	else
> +		for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)

The if-else needs curly braces.

> +			vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
> +				   BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
> +				   KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);

But I think that's a moot point, because isn't it easier to do this?

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
index c04e7d61a585..c99073098f98 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
@@ -367,6 +367,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
         */
        const size_t size = align_up(PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE, get_backing_src_pagesz(src_type));
        const size_t memfd_size = size * nr_vcpus;
+       const size_t slot_size = memfd_size / nr_memslots;
        struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
        pthread_t threads[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
        uint64_t gmem_flags;
@@ -390,7 +391,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
 
        for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
                vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
-                          BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
+                          BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, slot_size / vm->page_size,
                           KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
 
        for (i = 0; i < nr_vcpus; i++) {
Sean Christopherson Oct. 23, 2023, 6:06 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, Michael Roth wrote:
> > +			vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
> > +				   BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
> > +				   KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
> 
> But I think that's a moot point, because isn't it easier to do this?
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> index c04e7d61a585..c99073098f98 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> @@ -367,6 +367,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
>          */
>         const size_t size = align_up(PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE, get_backing_src_pagesz(src_type));
>         const size_t memfd_size = size * nr_vcpus;
> +       const size_t slot_size = memfd_size / nr_memslots;
>         struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
>         pthread_t threads[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
>         uint64_t gmem_flags;
> @@ -390,7 +391,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
>  
>         for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
>                 vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
> -                          BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
> +                          BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, slot_size / vm->page_size,
>                            KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);

This isn't quite right, the stride and offset needs to be per-memslot too.  Argh,
I created quite the mess by trying to take a shortcut for testing multiple memslots,
i.e. by only allowing '1' or "nr_vcpus" memslots.  Much of the code assumes that
ranges can't be covered by multiple memslots, e.g. the UCALL_SYNC handler assumes
the entire range is contiguous in the host virtual address space.

And I think there's meaningful coverage we're not getting, e.g. as is I don't think
we're testing KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES across multiple memslots (thankfully we
seem to have gotten the KVM side of things correct).

I'll post a small series to clean up the mess and let the user specify the number
of memslots (with some restrictions to keep the code relatively simple).
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
index c04e7d61a585..5eb693fead33 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
@@ -388,10 +388,14 @@  static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
 		gmem_flags = 0;
 	memfd = vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, memfd_size, gmem_flags);
 
-	for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
-		vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
-			   BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
-			   KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
+	if (nr_memslots == 1)
+		vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA, BASE_DATA_SLOT,
+			   memfd_size / vm->page_size, KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, 0);
+	else
+		for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
+			vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
+				   BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
+				   KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < nr_vcpus; i++) {
 		uint64_t gpa =  BASE_DATA_GPA + i * size;