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

[Auger Eric]

Hi Zenghui,

On 3/30/20 12:43 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> 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 <address@hidden>
> 
> [...]
> 
> 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.

Did you find some time to investigate this issue. Changing 100 to 1000
has a huge impact on the overall test duration and I don't think it is
sensible. Could you see what is your minimal value that pass the tests?

Thanks

Eric
> 
>> +    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 <address@hidden>
> 
> 
> Thanks
>