On 18/03/2021 17:20, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:16:24PM +0100, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Test for the KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID ioctl.
Check that it correctly allows to change the BSP vcpu.

v1 -> v2:
- remove unnecessary printf
- move stage for loop inside run_vcpu
- test EBUSY when calling KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID after vcpu
   creation and execution
- introduce _vm_ioctl

This information should be in the cover-letter. Or, for a single patch (no
cover-letter needed submission), then it should go below the '---' under
your s-o-b.



+static void add_x86_vcpu(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid, bool bsp_code)
+{
+       if (bsp_code)
+               vm_vcpu_add_default(vm, vcpuid, guest_bsp_vcpu);
+       else
+               vm_vcpu_add_default(vm, vcpuid, guest_not_bsp_vcpu);
+
+       vcpu_set_cpuid(vm, vcpuid, kvm_get_supported_cpuid());
+}
+
+static void run_vm_bsp(uint32_t bsp_vcpu)

I think the 'bsp' suffixes and prefixes make the purpose of this function
and its argument more confusing. Just

  static void run_vm(uint32_t vcpu)

would be more clear to me.

The idea here was "run vm with this vcpu as BSP", implicitly assuming that there are alwasy 2 vcpu inside, so we are picking one as BSP.

Maybe

run_vm_2_vcpu(uint32_t bsp_vcpid)

is better?


+{
+       struct kvm_vm *vm;
+       bool is_bsp_vcpu1 = bsp_vcpu == VCPU_ID1;

Could add another define

  #define BSP_VCPU VCPU_ID1

And then instead of creating the above bool, just do

  if (vcpu == BSP_VCPU)

I think it will be even more confusing to have BSP_VCPU fixed to VCPU_ID1, because in the tests before and after I use VCPU_ID0 as BSP.

        run_vm_bsp(VCPU_ID0);
        run_vm_bsp(VCPU_ID1);
        run_vm_bsp(VCPU_ID0);


+
+       vm = create_vm();
+
+       if (is_bsp_vcpu1)
+               vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *) VCPU_ID1);

Does this ioctl need to be called before creating the vcpus? The
documentation in Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst doesn't say that.

Yes, it has to be called before creating the vcpus, as also shown in the test function "check_set_bsp_busy". KVM checks that created_vcpus is 0 before setting the bsp field.

arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
                case KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID:
                ...
                if (kvm->created_vcpus)
                        r = -EBUSY;
                else
                        kvm->arch.bsp_vcpu_id = arg;

I will update the documentation to include also this information.

If it can be called after creating the vcpus, then
vm_create_default_with_vcpus() can be used and there's no need
for the create_vm() and add_x86_vcpu() functions.

Just use the
same guest code for both, but pass the cpu index to the guest
code function allowing something like

    if (cpu == BSP_VCPU)
        GUEST_ASSERT(get_bsp_flag() != 0);
    else
        GUEST_ASSERT(get_bsp_flag() == 0);

I might be wrong, but there seems not to be an easy way to pass arguments to the guest function.

Thank you,
Emanuele

+
+       add_x86_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID0, !is_bsp_vcpu1);
+       add_x86_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID1, is_bsp_vcpu1);
+
+       run_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID0);
+       run_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID1);
+
+       kvm_vm_free(vm);
+}
+
+static void check_set_bsp_busy(void)
+{
+       struct kvm_vm *vm;
+       int res;
+
+       vm = create_vm();
+
+       add_x86_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID0, true);
+       add_x86_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID1, false);
+
+       res = _vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *) VCPU_ID1);
+       TEST_ASSERT(res == -1 && errno == EBUSY, "KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID set after 
adding vcpu");
+
+       run_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID0);
+       run_vcpu(vm, VCPU_ID1);
+
+       res = _vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *) VCPU_ID1);
+       TEST_ASSERT(res == -1 && errno == EBUSY, "KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID set to a 
terminated vcpu");
+
+       kvm_vm_free(vm);
+}
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+       if (!kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID)) {
+               print_skip("set_boot_cpu_id not available");
+               return 0;

Should be exit(KSFT_SKIP);

+       }
+
+       run_vm_bsp(VCPU_ID0);
+       run_vm_bsp(VCPU_ID1);
+       run_vm_bsp(VCPU_ID0);
+
+       check_set_bsp_busy();

Don't you get a compiler warning here saying there's no return from a
function that returns int?

+}
--
2.29.2


Thanks,
drew


Reply via email to