Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Reply-To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: aarch64
 cleanup/fixes
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        ajones@ventanamicro.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, shuah@kernel.org,
        peterx@redhat.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, seanjc@google.com,
        ricarkol@google.com, zhenyzha@redhat.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com
References: <20221020071209.559062-1-gshan@redhat.com>
 <91d563b6-5f1c-5ecc-0a40-7d8838770b22@maciej.szmigiero.name>
From:   Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3903eeef-e037-9651-6041-0d16c29d67b0@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 18:54:13 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <91d563b6-5f1c-5ecc-0a40-7d8838770b22@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Marc,

On 10/25/22 7:18 AM, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 20.10.2022 09:12, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> kvm/selftests/memslots_perf_test doesn't work with 64KB-page-size-host
>> and 4KB-page-size-guest on aarch64. In the implementation, the host and
>> guest page size have been hardcoded to 4KB. It's ovbiously not working
>> on aarch64 which supports 4KB, 16KB, 64KB individually on host and guest.
>>
>> This series tries to fix it. After the series is applied, the test runs
>> successfully with 64KB-page-size-host and 4KB-page-size-guest.
>>
>>     # ./memslots_perf_tests -v -s 512
>>
>> Since we're here, the code is cleaned up a bit as PATCH[1-3] do. The
>> other patches are fixes to handle the mismatched host/guest page
>> sized.
>>
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20221014071914.227134-1-gshan@redhat.com/T/#t
>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20221018040454.405719-1-gshan@redhat.com/T/#t
>>
>> Changelog
>> =========
>> v3:
>>    * Improved comments about MEM_TEST_MOVE_SIZE, which is set
>>      to 64KB in PATCH[v3 4/6] and finally fixed to 192KB in
>>      PATCH[v3 5/6].                                              (Maciej)
>>    * Use size instead of pages to do the comparison in
>>      test_memslot_move_prepare()                                 (Maciej)
>>    * Use tools/include/linux/sizes.h instead of inventing
>>      our own macros.                                             (Oliver)
>> v2:
>>    * Pick the smaller value between the ones specified by
>>      user or probed from KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS in PATCH[v2 3/6]    (Maciej)
>>    * Improved comments about MEM_TEST_MOVE_SIZE in
>>      PATCH[v2 4/6]                                               (Maciej)
>>    * Avoid mismatched guest page size after VM is started in
>>      prepare_vm() in PATCH[v2 4/6]                               (Maciej)
>>    * Fix condition to check MEM_TEST_{UNMAP, UNMAP_CHUNK}_SIZE
>>      in check_memory_size() in PATCH[v2 4/6]                     (Maciej)
>>    * Define base and huge page size in kvm_util_base.h in
>>      PATCH[v2 5/6]                                               (Sean)
>>    * Add checks on host/guest page size in check_memory_size()
>>      and fail early if any of them exceeds 64KB in PATCH[v2 5/6] (Maciej)
>>
>>
>> Gavin Shan (6):
>>    KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Use data->nslots in prepare_vm()
>>    KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Consolidate loop conditions in
>>      prepare_vm()
>>    KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Probe memory slots for once
>>    KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Support variable guest page size
>>    KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Consolidate memory
>>    KVM: selftests: memslot_perf_test: Report optimal memory slots
>>
> 
> This patch set now looks good to me, so for the whole series:
> Reviewed-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
> 

If possible, could you please merge this series to 'next' branch either?
I hope it can be merged early because our downstream needs the fixes to
make the test case work. It's definitely fine to wait for more comments,
but I haven't receive any more comments in last month :)

Thanks,
Gavin