Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:07:32 +0100,
Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:33:39PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > v3:
> > - Took Ricardo's suggestions in order to avoid needing to update
> > prepare_vcpu_init, finalize_vcpu, and check_supported when adding
> > new register sublists by better associating the sublists with their
> > vcpu feature bits and caps [Ricardo]
> > - We now dynamically generate the vcpu config name by creating them
> > from its sublist names [drew]
> >
> > v2:
> > - Removed some cruft left over from a previous more complex design of the
> > config command line parser
> > - Dropped the list printing factor out patch as it's not necessary
> > - Added a 'PASS' output for passing tests to allow testers to feel good
> > - Changed the "up to date with kernel" comment to reference 5.13.0-rc2
> >
> >
> > Since KVM commit 11663111cd49 ("KVM: arm64: Hide PMU registers from
> > userspace when not available") the get-reg-list* tests have been
> > failing with
> >
> > ...
> > ... There are 74 missing registers.
> > The following lines are missing registers:
> > ...
> >
> > where the 74 missing registers are all PMU registers. This isn't a
> > bug in KVM that the selftest found, even though it's true that a
> > KVM userspace that wasn't setting the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 VCPU
> > flag, but still expecting the PMU registers to be in the reg-list,
> > would suddenly no longer have their expectations met. In that case,
> > the expectations were wrong, though, so that KVM userspace needs to
> > be fixed, and so does this selftest.
> >
> > We could fix the test with a one-liner since we just need a
> >
> > init->features[0] |= 1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3;
> >
> > in prepare_vcpu_init(), but that's too easy, so here's a 5 patch patch
> > series instead :-) The reason for all the patches and the heavy diffstat
> > is to prepare for other vcpu configuration testing, e.g. ptrauth and mte.
> > With the refactoring done in this series, we should now be able to easily
> > add register sublists and vcpu configs to the get-reg-list test, as the
> > last patch demonstrates with the pmu fix.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > drew
> >
> >
> > Andrew Jones (5):
> > KVM: arm64: selftests: get-reg-list: Introduce vcpu configs
> > KVM: arm64: selftests: get-reg-list: Prepare to run multiple configs
> > at once
> > KVM: arm64: selftests: get-reg-list: Provide config selection option
> > KVM: arm64: selftests: get-reg-list: Remove get-reg-list-sve
> > KVM: arm64: selftests: get-reg-list: Split base and pmu registers
> >
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 -
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 -
> > .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list-sve.c | 3 -
> > .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c | 439 +++++++++++++-----
> > 4 files changed, 321 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-)
> > delete mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list-sve.c
> >
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
>
> Gentle ping.
>
> I'm not sure if I'm pinging Marc or Paolo though. MAINTAINERS shows Paolo
> as all kvm selftests, but I think Marc has started picking up the AArch64
> specific kvm selftests.
I'm happy to queue this series.
> Marc, if you've decided to maintain AArch64 kvm selftests, would you be
> opposed to adding
>
> F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/aarch64/
> F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/
>
> to "KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR ARM64 (KVM/arm64)"?
No problem to add this, but I *will* rely on you (and whoever wants to
part-take) to do the bulk of the reviewing. Do we have a deal?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
