Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >> >> From: Nicholas Piggin <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> powerpc's maximum permitted vCPU ID depends on the VM's SMT mode, and >> >> the maximum reported by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID exceeds a simple non-SMT >> >> VM's limit. >> >> >> >> The powerpc KVM selftest port uses non-SMT VMs, so add a workaround >> >> to the kvm_create_max_vcpus test case to limit vCPU IDs to >> >> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS on powerpc. >> > >> > How is this not a KVM bug? Literally the reason this test exists is to >> > validate >> > KVM's advertised KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID and KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS. >> >> It's not a KVM bug, it's expected on PowerPC. On PowerPC, vCPU ID encodes >> SMT topology, e.g. on P9, >> vcpu id = core * stride + thread, >> .. where the stride is same as kvm->arch.emul_smt_mode (VM's emulated SMT >> mode) >> >> So the vcpu ID space can be sparse, however KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is the >> absolute ceil value (MAX_SMT_THREADS * KVM_MAX_VCORES) i.e. the value >> with the maximum stride / SMT value. >> >> Since default selftest VM uses stride 1, so it rejects IDS >= max_vcpus. >> >> e.g. >> static int kvmppc_core_vcpu_create_hv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> ... >> if (id >= (KVM_MAX_VCPUS * kvm->arch.emul_smt_mode)) { >> pr_devel("KVM: VCPU ID too high\n"); >> core = KVM_MAX_VCORES; /* rejected case */ >> } else { >> >> So, it's expected on PowerPC. vcpus with higher IDs can be created but >> for that we need to set KVM_CAP_PPC_SMT and use strided (sparse) IDs. >> But since the test as of now is not doing that - that's the reason why >> the patch only allows to test max vcpu IDs upto max vcpus. >> >> But I guess you must be hating the #ifdef __powerpc__ there. I agree I >> don't like it either.. maybe we can do it this way? > > I don't love the #ifdef, but it's more that I didn't want to effectively skip > a > test because KVM was reporting bad information. But after peeking at > KVM_CAP_PPC_SMT, > I 100% agree we don't want to deal with that here. > >> -#ifdef __powerpc64__ >> /* >> - * powerpc has a particular format for the vcpu ID that depends on >> - * the guest SMT mode, and the max ID cap is too large for non-SMT >> - * modes, where the maximum ID is the same as the maximum vCPUs. >> + * Some architectures (e.g. powerpc) encode topology into the vCPU >> ID, >> + * so a default VM can't necessarily use the full advertised ID >> range. >> + * Let the arch limit the highest ID this test will create. >> */ >> - kvm_max_vcpu_id = kvm_max_vcpus; >> -#endif >> + kvm_max_vcpu_id = kvm_arch_vcpu_id_limit(kvm_max_vcpus, >> kvm_max_vcpu_id); >> >> >> And then in kvm_util.c - >> + >> +__weak int kvm_arch_vcpu_id_limit(int nr_vcpus, int vcpu_id_max) >> +{ >> + return vcpu_id_max; >> +} > > What if we do this? We're going to be bleeding PPC details into the test no > matter what, adding an arch hooks just seems like extra cruft and an > unnecessary > layer of indirection. > > /* > * Skip the vCPU ID test when running on PowerPC with SMT support, in > * which case system topology is encoded into the vCPU ID, and so a VM > * can't use the full advertised vCPU ID range without crafting a valid > * platform specific topology. > */ > if (kvm_max_vcpu_id > kvm_max_vcpus && !kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_PPC_SMT)) > test_vcpu_creation( > kvm_max_vcpu_id - kvm_max_vcpus, kvm_max_vcpus);
Thanks! That should do and I think that's the most cleaner version. I will change patch-4 with your suggested changes then. -ritesh
