Hi Zenghui,
On 3/30/20 12:43 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2020/3/20 17:24, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Triggers LPIs through the INT command.
>>
>> the test checks the LPI hits the right CPU and triggers
>> the right LPI intid, ie. the translation is correct.
>>
>> Updates to the config table also are tested, along with inv
>> and invall commands.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [...]
>
> So I've tested this series and found that the "INT" test will sometimes
> fail.
>
> "not ok 12 - gicv3: its-migration: dev2/eventid=20 triggers LPI 8195 en
> PE #3 after migration
> not ok 13 - gicv3: its-migration: dev7/eventid=255 triggers LPI 8196 on
> PE #2 after migration"
>
> From logs:
> "INFO: gicv3: its-migration: Migration complete
> INT dev_id=2 event_id=20
> INFO: gicv3: its-migration: No LPI received whereas (cpuid=3,
> intid=8195) was expected
> FAIL: gicv3: its-migration: dev2/eventid=20 triggers LPI 8195 en PE #3
> after migration
> INT dev_id=7 event_id=255
> INFO: gicv3: its-migration: No LPI received whereas (cpuid=2,
> intid=8196) was expected
> FAIL: gicv3: its-migration: dev7/eventid=255 triggers LPI 8196 on PE #2
> after migration"
>
>> +static void check_lpi_stats(const char *msg)
>> +{
>> + bool pass = false;
>> +
>> + mdelay(100);
>
> After changing this to 'mdelay(1000)', the above error doesn't show up
> anymore. But it sounds strange that 100ms is not enough to deliver a
> single LPI. I haven't dig it further but will get back here later.
Did you find some time to investigate this issue. Changing 100 to 1000
has a huge impact on the overall test duration and I don't think it is
sensible. Could you see what is your minimal value that pass the tests?
Thanks
Eric
>
>> + smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_handler */
>> + if (lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id != lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id ||
>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id != lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id) {
>> + if (lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id == -1 &&
>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id == -1) {
>> + report_info("No LPI received whereas (cpuid=%d, intid=%d) "
>> + "was expected", lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id,
>> + lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id);
>> + } else {
>> + report_info("Unexpected LPI (cpuid=%d, intid=%d)",
>> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id,
>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id);
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + pass = true;
>> + }
>> + report(pass, "%s", msg);
>> +}
>
> This patch itself looks good to me,
> Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Thanks
>
