Hi Cyril,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:04:12PM +1000, Cyril Bur wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 15:33 +0800, wei.guo.simon@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch adds ptrace interface test for TM SPR registers. This
> > also adds ptrace interface based helper functions related to TM
> > SPR registers access.
> >
>
> I'm seeing this one fail a lot, it does occasionally succeed but fails
> a lot on my test setup.
>
> I use qemu on a power8 for most of my testing:
> qemu-system-ppc64 --enable-kvm -machine pseries,accel=kvm,usb=off -m
> 4096 -realtime mlock=off -smp 4,sockets=1,cores=2,threads=2 -nographic
> -vga none
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile | 3 +-
> > .../selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-tm-spr.c | 186
> > +++++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace.h | 35 ++++
> > 3 files changed, 223 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-tm-
> > spr.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile
> > index 797840a..f34670e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile
> > @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
> > TEST_PROGS := ptrace-ebb ptrace-gpr ptrace-tm-gpr ptrace-tm-spd-gpr
> > \
> > ptrace-tar ptrace-tm-tar ptrace-tm-spd-tar ptrace-vsx ptrace-tm-vsx
> > \
> > -ptrace-tm-spd-vsx
> > +ptrace-tm-spd-vsx ptrace-tm-spr
> >
> > +include ../../lib.mk
> >
> > all: $(TEST_PROGS)
> > CFLAGS += -m64
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-tm-spr.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-tm-spr.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..2863070
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/ptrace-tm-spr.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Ptrace test TM SPR registers
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2015 Anshuman Khandual, IBM Corporation.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> > + * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
> > + * 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> > + */
> > +#include "ptrace.h"
> > +
> > +/* Tracee and tracer shared data */
> > +struct shared {
> > + int flag;
> > + struct tm_spr_regs regs;
> > +};
> > +unsigned long tfhar;
> > +
> > +int shm_id;
> > +volatile struct shared *cptr, *pptr;
> > +
> > +int shm_id1;
> > +volatile int *cptr1, *pptr1;
> > +
> > +#define TM_SCHED 0xde0000018c000001
> > +#define TM_KVM_SCHED 0xe0000001ac000001
> > +
> > +int validate_tm_spr(struct tm_spr_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + if (regs->tm_tfhar != tfhar)
> > + return TEST_FAIL;
> > +
> > + if ((regs->tm_texasr != TM_SCHED) && (regs->tm_texasr !=
> > TM_KVM_SCHED))
> > + return TEST_FAIL;
>
> The above condition fails, should this test try again if this condition
> is true, rather than fail?
>
I reproduced the failure with your configuration. Besides treclaim, there are
many other reasons that may lead to the transaction failure according to ISA.
At least I observed following Texasr values:
1000018000001
1000088000001
10000a8000001
I noticed some FIAR locates at IPI handling related code. My previous configuration
is 4 sockets/each with only 1 core/1 thread. That is probably the reason I always
passed the test in the old configuration.(per my understanding, IPI is limited within
threads). So I removed the checking regarding specfied TEXASR value.
And I think I have reworked all your other comments.
I will send out v15 soon. Again thanks for your code inspection.
BR,
- Simon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
