On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:29:23AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote: > Hi Christoffer, Marc - > I just threw this test your way without any explanation. I'm confused. Did you send me something somewhere already? > > The test loops, does fp arithmetic and checks the truncated result. > It could be a little more dynamic have an initial run to > get the sum to compare against while looping, different fp > hardware may come up with a different sum, but truncation is > to 5'th decimal point. > > The rationale is that if there is any fp/simd corruption > one of these runs should fail. I think most likely scenario > for that is a world switch in midst of fp operation. I've > instrumented (basically add some tracing to vcpu_put()) and > validated vcpu_put gets called thousands of time (for v7,v8) > for an over night test running two guests/host crunching > fp operations. > > Other then that not sure how to really catch any problems > with the patches applied. Obviously this is a huge issues, if this has > any problems. If you or Marc have any other ideas I'd be happy > to enhance the test. I think it's important to run two VMs at the same time, each with some floating-point work, and then run some floating point on the host at the same time. You can make that even more interesting by doing 32-bit guests at the same time as well. I believe Marc was running Panranoia (http://www.netlib.org/paranoia/paranoia.c) to test the last lazy series. Thanks, -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
