From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
Gautam Menghani <gautammenghani201@gmail.com>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: selftests: Early pile of updates for 6.2
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:06:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <861qq1ptew.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3WKCRJbbvhnyDg1@google.com>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 01:10:33 +0000,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> Please pull a set of selftests updates for 6.2. Many of these changes are
> prep work for future selftests, e.g. for SEV and TDX, and/or have myriad
> conflicts, e.g. the former "perf util" code. I am hoping to get these
> changes queued up for 6.2 sooner than later so that the chain of dependent
> work doesn't get too long.
>
> Except for the ARM single-step changes[*], everything has been posted for
> quite some time and/or has gone through multiple rounds of review.
>
> The ARM single-step changes are a last minute fix to resolve a hilarious
> (IMO) collision between the pool-based ucall implementation and the
> recently added single-step test. Turns out that GCC will generate older
> flavors of atomics that rely on a monitor to detect conflicts, and that
A quick nit, and to make things clear: there is no "older flavours of
atomics". These are exclusive accesses, and atomics are, well,
atomics. The tests seem to use the former, which cannot guarantee
forward progress. Yes, this is utter crap.
> monitor is cleared by eret. gdb is allegedly smart enough to skip over
> atomic sequences, but our selftest... not so much.
I'm not sure how GDB performs this feat without completely messing
things up in some cases...
But it brings another question. Shouldn't these tests actively use
atomics when on 8.1+ HW?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-17 1:10 [GIT PULL] KVM: selftests: Early pile of updates for 6.2 Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 14:06 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2022-11-17 14:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-11-17 23:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-18 0:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-17 14:11 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=861qq1ptew.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=colin.i.king@gmail.com \
--cc=coltonlewis@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=gautammenghani201@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pgonda@google.com \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vannapurve@google.com \
--cc=vipinsh@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.