From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BD7C33CA1 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BBC2073A for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="N3TS9Ajq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726186AbgAHNpb (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:45:31 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:51413 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727221AbgAHNpb (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:45:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1578491129; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dG3i7yuSZ3ug5whVQjbMvnjTRjDpvRHXJetJ3lD56EE=; b=N3TS9AjqM8uIVPjkito7dT+fJXqhfHDfNRMjXlcPDta56ptjS5BXxqqRoPfNnHHgpVLHBB lVjznGD4WDrSEerDJDaNuTuRa7+qh4qIRr0maXxUhqZ33KEM9XWnSWrZoiBq3MqKqtJCsi XZzcZHW4kW2SzmE9wS8cTuZV97CpP44= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-227-D-99LmD1OlaSQU5Xry_7AQ-1; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 08:45:28 -0500 X-MC-Unique: D-99LmD1OlaSQU5Xry_7AQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D8E107ACC4; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kamzik.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.160]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99FC47C34A; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:45:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:45:20 +0100 From: Andrew Jones To: Ben Gardon Cc: Peter Xu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Cannon Matthews Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] KVM: selftests: Create a demand paging test Message-ID: <20200108134520.zcrg6bx6urv4zxea@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <20191216213901.106941-1-bgardon@google.com> <20191216213901.106941-2-bgardon@google.com> <20200107143334.GF219677@xz-x1> <20200107145608.ogi34nkyh2abdgrq@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 10:41:55AM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote: > I'll try to implement Drew's suggestion re: syncing global variables > and then looking up CPU ID. If I can do that I'll upload another patch > set for s390, aarch64, and x86. If I can't I'll move this test to the > x86 subdirectory. > > I apologize for not responding to the comments on the previous version > of this patch set. I'm still learning the mailing list etiquette. In > the future is it preferable that I reply to those comments when I > upload a new patch set addressing them, or should I add a note in the > new patch emails about the comments I addressed in that update? It's typically enough to just create a changelog in the cover letter. E.g. v3: - Added ... - Dropped ... - Fixed ... - Picked up r-b's v2: - Added ... - Dropped ... - Fixed ... - Picked up r-b's > > I don't have any aarch64 or s390 hardware handy to test on so I'll try > to move support for those architectures to separate commits at the end > of the series, and mark them untested. I'll test on aarch64, and I can also provide fixes if necessary. Thanks, drew > > Thank you for your quick responses! > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:33:34AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:38:54PM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote: > > > > While userfaultfd, KVM's demand paging implementation, is not specific > > > > to KVM, having a benchmark for its performance will be useful for > > > > guiding performance improvements to KVM. As a first step towards creating > > > > a userfaultfd demand paging test, create a simple memory access test, > > > > based on dirty_log_test. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon > > > > > > It's fine to start with x86-only for this test, but imho it would be > > > better to mention that in cover letter, or reply to reviewer comments > > > on that you removed aarch64 from previous post. > > > > I'd also prefer that if it's x86-only that it be put in the x86_64 > > subdirectory and drop the arch #ifdefs. The question is why is it > > x86-only for now though? Will it take a lot of work to port it to > > other architectures? Or does it just need testing by someone with > > the hardware? > > > > Thanks, > > drew > > >