Hi Sean,
Sorry I didn't see this email before sending out v6. I think we can ignore v6, once the discussion here is sorted - I can share a v7. Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2026, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: >> Also note - I will open code the TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON and will skip the >> kvm_create_max_vcpus > > Oh, right, kvm_create_max_vcpus is a common test. Can userspace detect that > it's > running KVM-on-PowerVM (in a not completely unpleasant way)? If so, an > alternative > would be to keep the KVM_CAP_PPC_SMT change in v6 (patch 2) as a prep patch > (before > adding PPC support to Makefile.kvm), and then add a > TEST_REQUIRE(!kvm_is_on_ppc_powervm()) or whatever. > So stictly speaking there is no simple check like that - however, I think we can skip the test when we are running on pseries LPAR (meaning trying to run a nested guest). We already have the check is_pseries_lpar() for access_tracking_perf_test. I think we can re-use the same check here as well. > I think I'd even prefer to take on an #ifdef (to scope it to PPC if necessary) > over open coding TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON. Sure, so will add this check for kvm_create_max_vcpus() #ifdef __powerpc64__ TEST_REQUIRE(!is_pseries_lpar()); #endif Actually I was thinking we may as well use the same check for now for skipping hardware_disable_test on pseries. Because there also we suffer from the same resource limitation. Let me know if that sounds ok to you or do you want us to skip kvm_create_max_vcpus() only for now, since it is part of TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON? > LoongArch open coded its full test list > for some reason, and in less than a year it has started missing out on new > common > tests. > >> (& maybe few others like vm_types_test) from that in v6. > > What's wrong with VM types test? That one really should Just Work on all > architectures. It doesn't run on LoongArch, but I assume that's > oversight? So the test doesn't fail (it gets skipped). However this cap "KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES" is only supported on x86 and since I was planning to open code all common tests, hence I thought I may as well not add this in the first place. BTW, based on this discussion, I think I will re-arrange the patches in the following order and send a v7. (The Makefile.kvm changes will only get added after the main patch which adds powerpc support). cfabdb049bd7 2026-10-05 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] (HEAD -> feat-ppc-kvm-selftests-new-sean-v7) KVM: selftests: Skip hardware_disable_test on pseries 2b51fab87b95 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: PPC: selftests: Skip idle-page check when running nested on pseries LPAR f5d1de1be4e9 2026-10-05 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Skip kvm_create_max_vcpus on pseries e45ba15cea25 2026-10-03 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: PPC: selftests: Add helper for checking if running nested 178c9bca0e20 2026-09-22 [Nicholas Piggin] KVM: PPC: selftests: add support for powerpc 22320662e776 2026-09-11 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Fix kvm_create_max_vcpus test for powerpc 11b5712b213b 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Move memslot_perf_test off the 256M ELF load address 63c900860b5f 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Don't limit LE dirty-bitmap bitops to s390x Please let me know if this sounds ok? -ritesh
