Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB5670B1AA392BF7502501D43B923C9@DM8PR11MB5670.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:26:33 +0000
From:   "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: fix overlapping addresses in
 memslot_perf_test

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigiero@...cle.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 7:07 AM
> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>; Duan, Zhenzhong
> <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org; Andrew Jones
> <drjones@...hat.com>
> 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 <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> >>>
> >>> 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().

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists