Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test | From | Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <> | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2020 00:01:33 -0300 |
| |
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@redhat.com> >> --- >> 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; >> +} >
| |