RE: [PATCH v1 05/18] KVM: selftests/hardware_disable_test: code consolidation and cleanup

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:16 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/hardware_disable_test.c
> >  static void run_test(uint32_t run)
> >  {
> >  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> >  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
> >  	cpu_set_t cpu_set;
> > -	pthread_t threads[VCPU_NUM];
> >  	pthread_t throw_away;
> > -	void *b;
> > +	pthread_attr_t attr;
> >  	uint32_t i, j;
> > +	int r;
> >
> >  	CPU_ZERO(&cpu_set);
> >  	for (i = 0; i < VCPU_NUM; i++)
> >  		CPU_SET(i, &cpu_set);
> 
> Uh, what is this test doing?  I assume the intent is to avoid spamming all
> pCPUs in the system, but I don't get the benefit of doing so.

IIUIC, it is to test if the condition race between the 2 paths:
#1 kvm_arch_hardware_disable->drop_user_return_notifiers() and
#2 fire_user_return_notifiers->kvm_on_user_return
has been solved by disabling interrupts in kvm_on_user_return.

To stress the tests, it creates a bunch of threads (continuously making syscalls
to trigger #2 above) to be scheduled on the same pCPU that runs a vCPU, and
then VM is killed, which triggers #1 above. 
They fork to test 512 times hoping there is chance #1 and #2 above can happen
at the same time without an issue.

+ Ignacio to confirm if possible.





[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux