From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F061805A for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 21:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749071844; cv=none; b=Z1QGf421Sn1UQPWBExUfFDSbNA08r410PmWc75U9B/Z+p0oVnapacNcTqkpiSKln1ZZKSy7Val4G5lYNS7uoiW19r9LvccrA64NM7ETVCllcUJ+ia5xlZv8NI1vypVN91DLcvAP+dlOPDl18u0Q7cx3WCFloTYcrDe//FWU1dmU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749071844; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CXCvGL5hSf5ngZ4A2BceMmShZkAeoCIwyR3G4t932uk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JLnwpwmNeIkFcokzc7o8SVky1nQzdnnZwkCEEHjtG1ScbBayV6iH5hN5nsKdzZAi+efMhQh4nEaJ0q+B0qjph19lOsSm9bIZ7W96tKDkd7tyS/kRq0XRmZBnI7Ch+zLNk/vrgZ1RvvOqh14JXz3D+ippErrGITfSFyuzPS+7578= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=THqChL2T; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="THqChL2T" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1749071841; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3eaIlD6SgIwBKzFRuDf45UmSCQNYGCKtzx7DOTC83A8=; b=THqChL2ThGEpA70BM0FfBVlZLdnIyz+tRD3UJxT1Ifr7QiQLQEYogc8bGJZov92e8Kb9xx K2YGTOLFzI5facoMqgO2xKdpP1vqyPiYkPhZkFNCDvZwLsCdQFT7yVlHAbK+OEbnmD5YYE 4e1Ap/JSnWJt/+ovhZsyY9Q6FkaIxps= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-530-UEUtdu-oPiCNreZ4nR5L4Q-1; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 17:17:18 -0400 X-MC-Unique: UEUtdu-oPiCNreZ4nR5L4Q-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: UEUtdu-oPiCNreZ4nR5L4Q_1749071837 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43eea5a5d80so889505e9.1 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:17:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1749071837; x=1749676637; h=mime-version:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3eaIlD6SgIwBKzFRuDf45UmSCQNYGCKtzx7DOTC83A8=; b=pNGTVDHjwSOJN33J1xRP1xvUlbF0KAJtJC89/0bGR+PYNt8djvBK8iVDHbUQFr11u+ GApjutBY12Y6b3UXojeckJ1dsAAw9lpfHN5fyZtvmj1TYqSME4tFSZC2w9taKbLMl13A GyXyZu8qbDDE+SmlB0pdcEvtasN0pMS7iaEJHEvQ2X7DE65zMAI0u+p6JP10yYl477+M yIAYbM46owpRdSORQ9/Cx6L4jr8a/6ufv9mbRg5/Dndk/4/3/fzxgun3D0SJN9axtECS 56pNRd7p5h5PkQ/gLnouANS3pKwKVu3vlMm4PZWUVemxdfeZXHfSqkGgp6MvGO1EeMl/ Jt5A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVIofKFhB+9qAaoym3XHWjTZECfjyOWAsEZJmxURk7TEC6RDn29cP0xwUkrRXFdNqZOYJ9GmpY=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyiiQP5WRSO63BZe/0V6omnkkplsieoWqFzXtENyGRY2gEL/jPT sHB1ON0hUyRe/dc8pLcyQTbhE8FBFFKABtIk+13UEvDEIai6KuRpbUpWnZKRIHfCZvvRYJSHrpx rG0y5uaznD+elp0GqSULHTxj+iGWInuiYOksh40wUuxTsYnGFgXYrLmWOEw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctvL8phousl2Hf9Ky/9w6is0l5bkuFo4yUREQ3Zs4ziij87FaaBRwg9bp+M0W7 qmcCrQmjEKM+EkPMtXM8EPadCVf6TTfN6CG+tTFc4K4NIJ5TOZKmfzjbUR5fZ5b3ez4lclYiTli Lw7DFAMnbyuy3hNyxIkzzGMVxfvVQgHB8g1RbIk1S5n1/cQj9zrj9FqGpQWrr8CFNfIr+jYxuOA YNkM3UlLPkHEJWIJ9RYdEaFgGS0bRExwylb60GQOhbnqKiVe3Ga/JOn7OpK6V+hbw9xzb1kZJOb jWDmj8L+gy+8pg4j3UwEDrsU/v3UZHdGHSLwWZf376fm7PJoQSy48zcWDlSq X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2512:b0:3a4:d274:1d9b with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a51d92f84amr3541710f8f.25.1749071837463; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG/w3mTJC6PzaXkAlaJcofTyt+hL5Id0Z9sQ5spOyW0fO3Rb3p4l0Y62I6sWoWE4eFRofNvzg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2512:b0:3a4:d274:1d9b with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a51d92f84amr3541694f8f.25.1749071836994; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rh (p200300f6af1bce00e6fe5f11c0a7f4a1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:f6:af1b:ce00:e6fe:5f11:c0a7:f4a1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-3a4efe6c842sm22506811f8f.29.2025.06.04.14.17.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 23:17:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Sebastian Ott To: Zenghui Yu cc: Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Colton Lewis , Ricardo Koller , Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Shuah Khan , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: arm64: selftests: arch_timer_edge_cases fixes In-Reply-To: <9b9f7099-4e81-9b74-a1ac-37cd4965675b@redhat.com> Message-ID: <77f07e94-82a2-5dc4-2483-e2ecff151e66@redhat.com> References: <20250527142434.25209-1-sebott@redhat.com> <9b9f7099-4e81-9b74-a1ac-37cd4965675b@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: -kOIgwQkVAXmfOmab5gLVaDzyChmvqT1PTYPc4hf7r4_1749071837 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Sebastian Ott wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2025, Zenghui Yu wrote: >> On 2025/5/27 22:24, Sebastian Ott wrote: >>> Some small fixes for arch_timer_edge_cases that I stumbled upon >>> while debugging failures for this selftest on ampere-one. >>> >>> Changes since v1: modified patch 3 based on suggestions from Marc. >>> >>> I've done some tests with this on various machines - seems to be all >>> good, however on ampere-one I now hit this in 10% of the runs: >>> ==== Test Assertion Failure ==== >>> arm64/arch_timer_edge_cases.c:481: timer_get_cntct(timer) >= DEF_CNT + >>> (timer_get_cntfrq() * (uint64_t)(delta_2_ms) / 1000) >>> pid=166657 tid=166657 errno=4 - Interrupted system call >>> 1 0x0000000000404db3: test_run at arch_timer_edge_cases.c:933 >>> 2 0x0000000000401f9f: main at arch_timer_edge_cases.c:1062 >>> 3 0x0000ffffaedd625b: ?? ??:0 >>> 4 0x0000ffffaedd633b: ?? ??:0 >>> 5 0x00000000004020af: _start at ??:? >>> timer_get_cntct(timer) >= DEF_CNT + msec_to_cycles(delta_2_ms) >>> >>> This is not new, it was just hidden behind the other failure. I'll >>> try to figure out what this is about (seems to be independent of >>> the wait time).. >> >> Not sure if you have figured it out. I can easily reproduce it on my box >> and I *guess* it is that we have some random XVAL values when we enable >> the timer.. > > Yes, I think so, too. > >> test_reprogramming_timer() >> { >> local_irq_disable(); >> reset_timer_state(timer, DEF_CNT); > > My first attempt was to also initialize cval here Forgot to mention that I did this because my tests have shown that the interrupt didn't only trigger early (like before the reprogrammed delta) but instantly. This seemed to work but I think the order in set_tval_irq() is the actual issue. > >> >> /* Program the timer to DEF_CNT + delta_1_ms. */ >> set_tval_irq(timer, msec_to_cycles(delta_1_ms), CTL_ENABLE); >> >> [...] >> } >> >> set_tval_irq() >> { >> timer_set_ctl(timer, ctl); >> >> // There is a window that we enable the timer with *random* XVAL >> // values and we may get the unexpected interrupt.. And it's >> // unlikely that KVM can be aware of TVAL's change (and >> // re-evaluate the interrupt's pending state) before hitting the >> // GUEST_ASSERT(). >> >> timer_set_tval(timer, tval_cycles); > > Yes, I stumbled over this as well. I've always assumed that this order is > becauase of this from the architecture "If CNTV_CTL_EL0.ENABLE is 0, the > value returned is UNKNOWN." However re-reading that part today I realized > that this only concerns register reads. > > Maybe somone on cc knows why it's in that order? > > I'm currently testing this with the above swapped and it's looking good, > so far. > >> } >> >> I'm not familiar with the test so I'm not 100% sure that this is the >> root cause. But I hope this helps with your analysis ;-) . > > It did, thanks! > > Sebastian >