Re: [ARM64] status of MTE selftests?

From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ARM64] status of MTE selftests?
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 17:40:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgjq3e9w.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ynkw2I4IlNEvyhRY@sirena.org.uk>

On Mon, May 09 2022, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:59:59AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Fri, May 06 2022, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> > I would expect them to work, they seemed happy when I was doing
>> > the async mode support IIRC and a quick spin with -next in qemu
>> > everything seems fine, I'm travelling so don't have the
>> > environment for models to hand right now.
>
>> Thanks; I think that points to some setup/config problem on my side,
>> then :/ (I ran the selftests under QEMU's tcg emulation, and while it
>> looks better, I still get timeouts for check_gcr_el1_cswitch and
>> check_user_mem.)
>
> That might just be an actual timeout depending on the preformance of
> the host system.

Our mails may have crossed mid-air; the tests finish for me eventually.

>
>> >> where $AXF contains a kernel at v5.18-rc5-16-g107c948d1d3e[2] and an
>> >> initrd built by mbuto[3] from that level with a slightly tweaked "kselftests"
>> >> profile (adding /dev/shm).
>
>> > What are you using for EL3 with the model?  Both TF-A and
>> > boot-wrapper are in regular use, TF-A gets *way* more testing
>> > than boot-wrapper which is mostly used by individual developers.
>
>> I'm building the .axf via boot-wrapper-aarch64 (enabling psci and gicv3,
>> if that matters.) Didn't try to make use of TF-A yet beyond the dtb (I'm
>> still in the process of getting familiar with the arm64 world, so I'm
>> currently starting out with the setups that others had shared with me.)
>
> I'm now back with the models and it turns out that while qemu is happy I
> can reproduce what you're seeing with the model, at least as far back as
> v5.15 which suggests it's likely to be more operator error than a bug.
> Trying to figure it out now.

Ok, thanks for looking.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel