On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 3:30 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 09:55:13AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 6:44 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 06:05:59PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:35 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:12:18AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > > > > > +static struct vcpu_reg_list aia_config = {
> > > > > > + .sublists = {
> > > > > > + BASE_SUBLIST,
> > > > > > + AIA_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > > > + {0},
> > > > > > + },
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static struct vcpu_reg_list fp_f_d_config = {
> > > > > > + .sublists = {
> > > > > > + BASE_SUBLIST,
> > > > > > + FP_F_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > > > + FP_D_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > > > + {0},
> > > > > > + },
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +struct vcpu_reg_list *vcpu_configs[] = {
> > > > > > + &zicbo_config,
> > > > > > + &aia_config,
> > > > > > + &fp_f_d_config,
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +int vcpu_configs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(vcpu_configs);
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see we have a bit of a problem with the configs for riscv. Since we
> > > > > don't disable anything we're not testing, then for any test that is
> > > > > missing, for example, the f and d registers, we'll get output like
> > > > > "There are 66 new registers. Consider adding them to the blessed reg
> > > > > list with the following lines:" and then a dump of all the f and d
> > > > > registers. The test doesn't fail, but it's messy and confusing. Ideally
> > > > > we'd disable all registers of all sublists not in the config, probably
> > > > > by starting by disabling everything and then only reenabling the ones
> > > > > in the config.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything that can't be disabled is either a KVM bug, i.e. we should
> > > > > be able to disable it, because we can't expect every host to have it,
> > > > > or it needs to be in the base register sublist (meaning every host
> > > > > will always have it).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > HI Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > I found several multi-letters ISA EXT(AIA/SSTC etc) were not allowed
> > > > to be disabled.
> > > > Is it a bug? shall we fix it？
> > >
> > > Extensions that a guest could use (regardless of whether or not the host
> > > described it in the guest's isa string), because the instructions or CSR
> > > accesses don't trap, can't truly be disabled. So, it's not a bug to
> > > prohibit disabling them and indeed the test cases should actually ensure
> > > disabling them fails.
> > >
> >
> > So these kinds of ISA_EXT_* regs should be in the base reg list, right?
> >
>
> Ah, this is getting a bit messy. We don't want all these extensions in a
> "base", which represents extensions for all possible hosts, because the
> extensions are optional, but, we can't remove them from get-reg-list
> output by disabling them, since they can't be disabled. It seems we
> need the concept of "base", which is the common set expected on all hosts,
> and also the concept of "this host's base". I'm struggling to think of
> a nice way to deal with that. A first thought is to both add these types
> of registers to their own extension-specific sublists and to filter_reg().
> I think that will keep them from being reported as new registers in every
> test, but also allow detection of them going missing when they're
> extension is present.
>
Yes, I was also stuck with the mess!
I was trying one way to only include `disable not allowed` regs to the
base reg list and
only check errno for disable(set 0) operation.
I will also try your suggestion and let you know the results soon!
Thanks,
Haibo
> Thanks,
> drew
