Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/15] KVM: selftests: Move per-VM GPA into perf_test_args
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc:     kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>
References: <20210210230625.550939-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210210230625.550939-10-seanjc@google.com>
 <CANgfPd8itawTsza-SPSMehUEAAJ4DWtSQX4QRbHg1kX4c6VRBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YCSOtMzs9OWO2AsR@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <756fed52-8151-97ee-11f2-91f150afab42@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:12:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YCSOtMzs9OWO2AsR@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/02/21 02:56, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> +       pta->gpa = (vm_get_max_gfn(vm) - guest_num_pages) * pta->guest_page_size;
>>> +       pta->gpa &= ~(pta->host_page_size - 1);
>> Also not related to this patch, but another case for align.
>>
>>>          if (backing_src == VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS_THP ||
>>>              backing_src == VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS_HUGETLB)
>>> -               guest_test_phys_mem &= ~(KVM_UTIL_HUGEPAGE_ALIGNMENT - 1);
>>> -
>>> +               pta->gpa &= ~(KVM_UTIL_HUGEPAGE_ALIGNMENT - 1);
>> also align
>>
>>>   #ifdef __s390x__
>>>          /* Align to 1M (segment size) */
>>> -       guest_test_phys_mem &= ~((1 << 20) - 1);
>>> +       pta->gpa &= ~((1 << 20) - 1);
>> And here again (oof)
> 
> Yep, I'll fix all these and the align() comment in v2.

This is not exactly align in fact; it is x & ~y rather than (x + y) & 
~y.  Are you going to introduce a round-down macro or is it a bug?  (I 
am lazy...).

Paolo