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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210210230625.550939-1-seanjc@google.com> <20210210230625.550939-10-seanjc@google.com>
 <CANgfPd8itawTsza-SPSMehUEAAJ4DWtSQX4QRbHg1kX4c6VRBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YCSOtMzs9OWO2AsR@google.com> <756fed52-8151-97ee-11f2-91f150afab42@redhat.com>
 <YCVUAdx3DYLPNwJU@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YCVUAdx3DYLPNwJU@google.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:33:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CANgfPd_W+wqx_UXHR7OWCBY7KEnsdNC12QZmGNjzOSBb1XOUyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/15] KVM: selftests: Move per-VM GPA into perf_test_args
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:58 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > 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...).
>
> Good question.  I, too, was lazy.  I didn't look at the guts of align() when I
> moved it, and I didn't look closely at Ben's suggestion.  I'll take a closer
> look today and make sure everything is doing what it's supposed to do.

Ooh, great point Paolo, that helper is indeed rounding up. My comment
in patch #2 was totally wrong. I forgot anyone would ever want to
round up. :/
My misunderstanding and the above use cases are probably good evidence
that it would be helpful to have both align_up and align_down helpers.