On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 09:51:15AM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Il 16/09/2014 14:43, Andrew Jones ha scritto: > > > > I don't think we need to worry about this case. AFAIU, enabling the > > > > caches for a particular cpu shouldn't require any synchronization. > > > > So we should be able to do > > > > > > > > enable caches > > > > spin_lock > > > > start other processors > > > > spin_unlock > > > > > > Ok, I'll test and apply your patch then. > > > > > > Once you change the code to enable caches, please consider hanging on > > > spin_lock with caches disabled. > > > > Unfortunately I can't do that without changing spin_lock into a wrapper > > function. Early setup code calls functions that use spin_locks, e.g. > > puts(), and we won't want to move the cache enablement into early setup > > code, as that should be left for unit tests to turn on off as they wish. > > Thus we either need to be able to change the spin_lock implementation > > dynamically, or just leave the test/return as is. > > > My take on this whole thing is that we're doing something fundamentally > wrong. I think what we should do is to always enable the MMU for > running actual tests, bringing up multiple CPUs etc. We could have an > early_printf() that doesn't use the spinlock. I think this will just be > a more stable setup. > > Do we have clear ideas of which kinds of tests it would make sense to > run without the MMU turned on? If we can be more concrete on this > subject, perhaps a special path (or build) that doesn't enable the MMU > for running the aforementioned test cases could be added. > Finally carving out kvm-unit-tests time again and fixed this properly. A series is on the list "[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/6] arm: enable MMU". drew _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
