From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, anup@brainfault.org,
atish.patra@linux.dev, pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com,
aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, alex@ghiti.fr, pbonzini@redhat.com,
shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: selftests: Add unit to dirty_log_test
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 17:03:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agO_0ejKd0x38_-E@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202605111130.64BBUXDN013040@mse-fl2.zte.com.cn>
On Mon, May 11, 2026, wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn wrote:
> Currently dirty_log_test hardcodes usleep 1ms in each interval, which
> could be too short for guest to write and fault in enough pages, then
> there is less chance to test the write protection mechanism, especially
> in the case of (log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING).
But when log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING, the individual sleep time is largely
meaningless, because the test won't reap the bitmaps for iterations > 0.
if (i && host_log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING)
continue;
>
> Unit is introduced to replace the default 1ms if specified in command
> line. The following test can't trigger failure on my riscv vm:
Failure of what? And does the failure really not reproduce with a higher interval?
>
> # ./dirty_log_test -m 21 -M clear-log
>
> By enlarging unit, it fails every time:
"unit" is way too vague. Even looking at the code, it's not clear to me what
you intended a "unit" to be. I'm not entirely opposed to providing the user with
more control over the innards of the test, but the interface needs to be somewhat
intuitive.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, anup@brainfault.org,
atish.patra@linux.dev, pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com,
aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, alex@ghiti.fr, pbonzini@redhat.com,
shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: selftests: Add unit to dirty_log_test
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 17:03:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agO_0ejKd0x38_-E@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202605111130.64BBUXDN013040@mse-fl2.zte.com.cn>
On Mon, May 11, 2026, wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn wrote:
> Currently dirty_log_test hardcodes usleep 1ms in each interval, which
> could be too short for guest to write and fault in enough pages, then
> there is less chance to test the write protection mechanism, especially
> in the case of (log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING).
But when log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING, the individual sleep time is largely
meaningless, because the test won't reap the bitmaps for iterations > 0.
if (i && host_log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING)
continue;
>
> Unit is introduced to replace the default 1ms if specified in command
> line. The following test can't trigger failure on my riscv vm:
Failure of what? And does the failure really not reproduce with a higher interval?
>
> # ./dirty_log_test -m 21 -M clear-log
>
> By enlarging unit, it fails every time:
"unit" is way too vague. Even looking at the code, it's not clear to me what
you intended a "unit" to be. I'm not entirely opposed to providing the user with
more control over the innards of the test, but the interface needs to be somewhat
intuitive.
--
kvm-riscv mailing list
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kvm-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, anup@brainfault.org,
atish.patra@linux.dev, pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com,
aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, alex@ghiti.fr, pbonzini@redhat.com,
shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: selftests: Add unit to dirty_log_test
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 17:03:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agO_0ejKd0x38_-E@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202605111130.64BBUXDN013040@mse-fl2.zte.com.cn>
On Mon, May 11, 2026, wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn wrote:
> Currently dirty_log_test hardcodes usleep 1ms in each interval, which
> could be too short for guest to write and fault in enough pages, then
> there is less chance to test the write protection mechanism, especially
> in the case of (log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING).
But when log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING, the individual sleep time is largely
meaningless, because the test won't reap the bitmaps for iterations > 0.
if (i && host_log_mode != LOG_MODE_DIRTY_RING)
continue;
>
> Unit is introduced to replace the default 1ms if specified in command
> line. The following test can't trigger failure on my riscv vm:
Failure of what? And does the failure really not reproduce with a higher interval?
>
> # ./dirty_log_test -m 21 -M clear-log
>
> By enlarging unit, it fails every time:
"unit" is way too vague. Even looking at the code, it's not clear to me what
you intended a "unit" to be. I'm not entirely opposed to providing the user with
more control over the innards of the test, but the interface needs to be somewhat
intuitive.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-13 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <202605111849442561v1a0B_7W1L2Z-ENusLaP@zte.com.cn>
2026-05-11 11:23 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: selftests: Add unit to dirty_log_test wu.fei9
2026-05-11 11:23 ` wu.fei9
2026-05-11 11:23 ` wu.fei9
2026-05-13 0:03 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-05-13 0:03 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-13 0:03 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-13 12:27 ` Wu Fei
2026-05-13 12:27 ` Wu Fei
2026-05-13 12:27 ` Wu Fei
2026-05-15 13:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-15 13:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-15 13:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-18 12:52 ` Wu Fei
2026-05-18 12:52 ` Wu Fei
2026-05-18 12:52 ` Wu Fei
2026-05-18 13:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-18 13:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-18 13:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-05-11 11:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] RISC-V: KVM: Fix skip of valid pages in kvm_riscv_gstage_wp_range wu.fei9
2026-05-11 11:24 ` wu.fei9
2026-05-11 11:24 ` wu.fei9
2026-06-02 8:00 ` Anup Patel
2026-06-02 8:00 ` Anup Patel
2026-06-02 8:00 ` Anup Patel
2026-05-11 11:29 ` [PATCH 3/3] RISC-V: KVM: Fix skip of valid pages in kvm_riscv_gstage_unmap_range wu.fei9
2026-05-11 11:29 ` wu.fei9
2026-05-11 11:29 ` wu.fei9
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=agO_0ejKd0x38_-E@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=atish.patra@linux.dev \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pjw@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=wu.fei9@sanechips.com.cn \
/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.