[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: fix overlapping addresses in memslot_perf_test
On 03.06.2021 14:37, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 05:26:33AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maciej S. Szmigiero <>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 7:07 AM
>>> To: Paolo Bonzini <>; Duan, Zhenzhong
>>> <>
>>> Cc:;; Andrew Jones
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: fix overlapping addresses in
>>> memslot_perf_test
>>> On 30.05.2021 01:13, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>> On 29.05.2021 12:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>> On 28/05/21 21:51, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.05.2021 21:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>>>> The memory that is allocated in vm_create is already mapped close
>>>>>>> to GPA 0, because test_execute passes the requested memory to
>>>>>>> prepare_vm.  This causes overlapping memory regions and the test
>>>>>>> crashes.  For simplicity just move MEM_GPA higher.
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <>
>>>>>> I am not sure that I understand the issue correctly, is
>>>>>> vm_create_default() already reserving low GPAs (around 0x10000000)
>>>>>> on some arches or run environments?
>>>>> It maps the number of pages you pass in the second argument, see
>>>>> vm_create.
>>>>>    if (phy_pages != 0)
>>>>>      vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS,
>>>>>                                  0, 0, phy_pages, 0);
>>>>> In this case:
>>>>>    data->vm = vm_create_default(VCPU_ID, mempages, guest_code);
>>>>> called here:
>>>>>    if (!prepare_vm(data, nslots, maxslots, tdata->guest_code,
>>>>>                    mem_size, slot_runtime)) {
>>>>> where mempages is mem_size, which is declared as:
>>>>>          uint64_t mem_size = tdata->mem_size ? : MEM_SIZE_PAGES;
>>>>> but actually a better fix is just to pass a small fixed value (e.g.
>>>>> 1024) to vm_create_default, since all other regions are added by hand
>>>> Yes, but the argument that is passed to vm_create_default() (mem_size
>>>> in the case of the test) is not passed as phy_pages to vm_create().
>>>> Rather, vm_create_with_vcpus() calculates some upper bound of extra
>>>> memory that is needed to cover that much guest memory (including for
>>>> its page tables).
>>>> The biggest possible mem_size from memslot_perf_test is 512 MiB + 1
>>>> page, according to my calculations this results in phy_pages of 1029
>>>> (~4 MiB) in the x86-64 case and around 1540 (~6 MiB) in the s390x case
>>>> (here I am not sure about the exact number, since s390x has some
>>>> additional alignment requirements).
>>>> Both values are well below 256 MiB (0x10000000UL), so I was wondering
>>>> what kind of circumstances can make these allocations collide (maybe I
>>>> am missing something in my analysis).
>>> I see now that there has been a patch merged last week called
>>> "selftests: kvm: make allocation of extra memory take effect" by Zhenzhong
>>> that now allocates also the whole memory size passed to
>>> vm_create_default() (instead of just page tables for that much memory).
>>> The commit message of this patch says that "perf_test_util and
>>> kvm_page_table_test use it to alloc extra memory currently", however both
>>> kvm_page_table_test and lib/perf_test_util framework explicitly add the
>>> required memory allocation by doing a vm_userspace_mem_region_add()
>>> call for the same memory size that they pass to vm_create_default().
>>> So now they allocate this memory twice.
>>> @Zhenzhong: did you notice improper operation of either
>>> kvm_page_table_test or perf_test_util-based tests (demand_paging_test,
>>> dirty_log_perf_test,
>>> memslot_modification_stress_test) before your patch?
>> No
>>> They seem to work fine for me without the patch (and I guess other people
>>> would have noticed earlier, too, if they were broken).
>>> After this patch not only these tests allocate their memory twice but it is
>>> harder to make vm_create_default() allocate the right amount of memory for
>>> the page tables in cases where the test needs to explicitly use
>>> vm_userspace_mem_region_add() for its allocations (because it wants the
>>> allocation placed at a specific GPA or in a specific memslot).
>>> One has to basically open-code the page table size calculations from
>>> vm_create_with_vcpus() in the particular test then, taking also into account
>>> that vm_create_with_vcpus() will not only allocate the passed memory size
>>> (calculated page tables size) but also behave like it was allocating space for
>>> page tables for these page tables (even though the passed memory size itself
>>> is supposed to cover them).
>> Looks we have different understanding to the parameter extra_mem_pages of vm_create_default().
>> In your usage, extra_mem_pages is only used for page table calculations, real extra memory allocation
>> happens in the extra call of vm_userspace_mem_region_add().
> Yes, this is the meaning that kvm selftests has always had for
> extra_mem_pages of vm_create_default(). If we'd rather have a different
> meaning, that's fine, but we need to change all the callers of the
> function as well.

If we change the meaning of extra_mem_pages (keep the patch) it would be
good to still have an additional parameter to vm_create_with_vcpus() for
tests that have to allocate their memory on their own via
vm_userspace_mem_region_add() for vm_create_with_vcpus() to just allocate
the page tables for these manual allocations.
Or a helper to calculate the required extra_mem_pages for them.

> If we decide to leave vm_create_default() the way it was by reverting this
> patch, then maybe we should consider renaming the parameter and/or
> documenting the function.

Adding a descriptive comment (and possibly renaming the parameter) seems
like a much simpler solution to me that adapting these tests (and possibly
adding the parameter or helper described above for them).

> Thanks,
> drew


>> In my understanding, extra_mem_pages is used for a VM who wants a custom memory size in slot0,
>> rather than the default DEFAULT_GUEST_PHY_PAGES size.
>> I understood your comments and do agree that my patch bring some trouble to your code, sorry for that.
>> I'm fine to revert that patch and I think it's better to let the maintainers to decide what extra_mem_pages
>> Is used for.
>> Thanks
>> Zhenzhong
>>> Due to the above, I suspect the previous behavior was, in fact, correct.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Maciej

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-03 15:06    [W:0.267 / U:25.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site