On Thu, 2024-12-19 at 13:55 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/19/24 03:13, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > While this patch might improve coverage for this particular case, > > > I think that this patch will make the test to be much more deterministic, > > > > The verification will be more deterministic, but the actual testcase itself is > > just as random as it was before. > > Based on my recollection of designing this thing with Peter, I can > "confirm" that there was no particular intention of making the > verification more random. > > > > and thus have less chance of catching various races in the kernel that can happen. > > > > > > In fact in my option I prefer moving this test in other direction by > > > verifying dirty ring while the *vCPU runs* as well, in other words, not > > > stopping the vCPU at all unless its dirty ring is full. > > > > But letting the vCPU-under-test keep changing the memory while it's being validated > > would add significant complexity, without any benefit insofar as I can see. As > > evidenced by the bug the current approach can't detect, heavily stressing the > > system is meaningless if it's impossible to separate the signal from the noise. > > Yes, I agree. > > Paolo > In this case I don't have any objections. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky
