On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 03:23:24PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >> > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:09:57PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:20:09PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >> > > > > Rearrange the code to be able to reuse as much as posible and add
>> >> > > > > support for testing the physical timer as well.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Also change the default unittests configuration to run a separate vtimer
>> >> > > > > and ptimer test so that older kernels without ptimer support just show a
>> >> > > > > failure.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > We could run tests for both the ptimer and vtimer in a single execution,
>> >> > > > rather than splitting them and requiring the input, because the read of
>> >> > > > cntp_ctl_el0 will predictably cause an UNKNOWN exception. Also, by
>> >> > > > applying the errata framework we can ensure that if we expect the read
>> >> > > > to work, i.e. the host kernel is recent enough, then, if we still get
>> >> > > > an UNKNOWN exception, we can report FAIL instead of SKIP. Below is an
>> >> > > > add on patch that makes the conversion. Let me know what you think.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The problem with this patch, is that we then report SKIP instead of
>> >> > > FAIL, when we regress the kernel and actually break physical counter
>> >> > > access (which I did while developing my series).
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, as long as the cntp_ctl_el0 read isn't regressed into generating
>> >> > an unknown exception, then the ptimer tests will always be run, reporting
>> >> > failures as they should.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And that is exactly what we've done a couple of times around, because
>> >> VHE changes the layout of the trap control register to EL2, and the way
>> >> we handle traps to KVM of the physical counter register is to inject an
>> >> undefined exception...
>> >>
>> >> > > I think something like this should be discovered by way of capabilities
>> >> > > or hardcoding a kernel version.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's possible already by making one more change (which I should have
>> >> > made in the first place)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/errata.txt b/errata.txt
>> >> > index 5608a308ce7c9..8859d4f1d3860 100644
>> >> > --- a/errata.txt
>> >> > +++ b/errata.txt
>> >> > @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@
>> >> > #---------------:-----------------------:--------------------------------------
>> >> > 9e3f7a296940 : 4.9 : arm64: KVM: pmu: Fix AArch32 cycle counter access
>> >> > 6c7a5dce22b3 : 4.12 : KVM: arm/arm64: fix races in kvm_psci_vcpu_on
>> >> > +7b6b46311a85 : 4.11 : KVM: arm/arm64: Emulate the EL1 phys timer registers
>> >> > #---------------:-----------------------:--------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > With that change, when the test runtime system detects it's running on
>> >> > a host with at least a 4.11 kernel, then it will automatically set
>> >> > ERRATA_7b6b46311a85=y (unless overridden by the user). Having that
>> >> > errata set will even ensure the cntp_ctl_el0 read is tested.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ah, ok then that makes perfect sense.
>> >>
>> >> I'm a little confused about the logic though, if we regress the physical
>> >> counter access on a newer kernel in a way that gives you an undefined
>> >> exception, will we get FAIL or SKIP?
>> >>
>> >> We should get FAIL.
>> >
>> > We'll get FAIL as long as the user doesn't override ERRATA_7b6b46311a85
>> > to be 'n'. See the if-else in set_ptimer_unsupported()
>> >
>> > if (ptimer_unsupported && !ERRATA(7b6b46311a85)) {
>> > report_skip("Skipping ptimer tests. Set ERRATA_7b6b46311a85=y to enable.");
>> > } else if (ptimer_unsupported) {
>> > report("ptimer: read CNTP_CTL_EL0", false);
>> > report_info("ptimer: skipping remaining tests");
>> > }
>>
>> so report("...", false); means FAIL?
>
> Yup, first argument following fmt to report() is the test result. We
> should probably create report_pass/fail() wrappers.
>
Yes, for incompetent reviewers like me :)
Thanks,
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
