Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 4/8/20 10:31 PM, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:

On 4/8/20 3:08 PM, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
This patch introduces the mem_slot_test test which checks
an VM can have added memory slots up to the limit defined in
KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS. Then attempt to add one more slot to
verify it fails as expected.

Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore      |  1 +
  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile        |  3 +
  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
index 16877c3daabf..127d27188427 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
@@ -21,4 +21,5 @@
  /demand_paging_test
  /dirty_log_test
  /kvm_create_max_vcpus
+/mem_slot_test
  /steal_time
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
index 712a2ddd2a27..338b6cdce1a0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
@@ -32,12 +32,14 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += clear_dirty_log_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += dirty_log_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus
+TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += mem_slot_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += steal_time
    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += clear_dirty_log_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus
+TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += mem_slot_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += steal_time
    TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x = s390x/memop
@@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/sync_regs_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += demand_paging_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += dirty_log_test
  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += kvm_create_max_vcpus
+TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += mem_slot_test
    TEST_GEN_PROGS += $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_$(UNAME_M))
  LIBKVM += $(LIBKVM_$(UNAME_M))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..7c1009f0bc07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * mem_slot_test
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2020, Red Hat, Inc.
+ *
+ * Test suite for memory region operations.
+ */
+#define _GNU_SOURCE /* for program_invocation_short_name */
+#include <linux/kvm.h>
+#include <sys/mman.h>
+
+#include "test_util.h"
+#include "kvm_util.h"
+
+/*
+ * Test it can be added memory slots up to KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS, then any
+ * tentative to add further slots should fail.
+ */
+static void test_add_max_slots(void)
+{
+    int ret;
+    struct kvm_vm *vm;
+    uint32_t max_mem_slots;
+    uint32_t slot;
+    uint64_t guest_addr;
+    uint64_t mem_reg_npages;
+    uint64_t mem_reg_size;
+    void *mem;
+
+    max_mem_slots = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS);
+    TEST_ASSERT(max_mem_slots > 0,
+            "KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS should be greater than 0");
+    pr_info("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
+
+    vm = vm_create(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, 0, O_RDWR);
+
+    /*
+     * Uses 1MB sized/aligned memory region since this is the minimal
+     * required on s390x.
+     */
+    mem_reg_size = 0x100000;
+    mem_reg_npages = vm_calc_num_guest_pages(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, mem_reg_size);
+
+    guest_addr = 0x0;


Nit: Can't this be initialized where it's defined above ?


I don't have a strong preference. Is it generally initialized on definition on kvm (selftests or not) code?




+
+    /* Check it can be added memory slots up to the maximum allowed */
+    pr_info("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %ldK size\n",
+        (max_mem_slots - 1), mem_reg_size >> 10);
+    for (slot = 0; slot < max_mem_slots; slot++) {
+        vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS,
+                        guest_addr, slot, mem_reg_npages,
+                        0);
+        guest_addr += mem_reg_size;
+    }
+
+    /* Check it cannot be added memory slots beyond the limit */
+    mem = mmap(NULL, mem_reg_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+           MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
+    TEST_ASSERT(mem != MAP_FAILED, "Failed to mmap() host");
+
+    ret = ioctl(vm_get_fd(vm), KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION,
+            &(struct kvm_userspace_memory_region) {slot, 0, guest_addr,
+            mem_reg_size, (uint64_t) mem});
+    TEST_ASSERT(ret == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
+            "Adding one more memory slot should fail with EINVAL");


Why not add a test here for adding memory at an existing slot ?

Good question.

I'm working on another test which should check it cannot be added overlapping slots. I will send it in a separate patch series, depending on the fate of this one. :)

More precisely, those are the cases I will cover on this new test:


                0x100000  0x300000
          0x0         0x200000 0x400000
 slot0 |              |---2MB--|                         (SUCCESS)
 slot1       |---2MB--|                                  (FAIL)
 slot2 |---2MB--|                                        (SUCCESS)
 slot3                |---2MB--|                         (FAIL)
 slot4                         |---2MB--|                (FAIL)
 slot5                               |---2MB--|          (SUCCESS)

Thanks!

Wainer



+
+    munmap(mem, mem_reg_size);
+    kvm_vm_free(vm);
+}
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+    test_add_max_slots();
+    return 0;
+}






[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux