On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:52:30PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:51:06PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 09:10:11PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > The work is based on Thomas's s390 port for dirty_log_test. [1] > > > > > > This series originates from "[PATCH] KVM: selftests: Detect max PA > > > width from cpuid" [1] and one of Drew's comments - instead of keeping > > > the hackish line to overwrite guest_pa_bits all the time, this series > > > introduced the new mode VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K for x86_64 platform. > > > > > > The major issue is that even all the x86_64 kvm selftests are > > > currently using the guest mode VM_MODE_P52V48_4K, many x86_64 hosts > > > are not using 52 bits PA (and in most cases, far less). If with luck > > > we could be having 48 bits hosts, but it's more adhoc (I've observed 3 > > > x86_64 systems, they are having different PA width of 36, 39, 48). I > > > am not sure whether this is happening to the other archs as well, but > > > it probably makes sense to bring the x86_64 tests to the real world on > > > always using the correct PA bits. > > > > > > A side effect of this series is that it will also fix the crash we've > > > encountered on Xeon E3-1220 as mentioned [1] due to the > > > differenciation of PA width. > > > > > > With [1], we've observed AMD host issues when with NPT=off. However a > > > funny fact is that after I reworked into this series, the tests can > > > instead pass on both NPT=on/off. It could be that the series changes > > > vm->pa_bits or other fields so something was affected. I didn't dig > > > more on that though, considering we should not lose anything. > > > > > > Any kind of smoke test would be greatly welcomed (especially on s390 > > > or ARM). Same to comments. Thanks, > > > > > > > The patches didn't apply cleanly for me on 9e8312f5e160, but once I got > > them applied I was able to run the aarch64 tests. Right, because I applied Thomas's s390x port as base [1], considering that that one should reach kvm/queue earlier (should be in the submaintainer's tree and waiting for a pull). Maybe I should post against the current kvm/queue next time? After all this series does not modify anything of the s390x work so the conflict should be trivial. > > Oh, and after fixing 2/4 (vm->pa_bits) to fix compilation on aarch64 as > pointed out on that patch. Thanks for verifying and reviews! Yes I'll fix that up. Regards, -- Peter Xu
