Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 10/13] arm/arm64: ITS: INT functional tests

[Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>]

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@redhat.com>

[...]

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.

> +	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@huawei.com>


Thanks

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm