[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aNq6qWVEBLkWhWFc@google.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:58:17 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] KVM: selftests: Stash the host page size in a global
in the guest_memfd test
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
>
> > Use a global variable to track the host page size in the guest_memfd test
> > so that the information doesn't need to be constantly passed around. The
> > state is purely a reflection of the underlying system, i.e. can't be set
> > by the test and is constant for a given invocation of the test, and thus
> > explicitly passing the host page size to individual testcases adds no
> > value, e.g. doesn't allow testing different combinations.
> >
>
> I was going to pass in page_size to each of these test cases to test
> HugeTLB support, that's how page_size crept into the parameters of these
> functions.
>
> Could we do a getpagesize() within the gmem_test() macro that you
> introduced instead?
We could, and I actually had it that way to start. But I found that burying the
effective setting of page_size made it harder to see that it's a runtime constant,
versus something that can be configured by the test.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists