From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-174.mta1.migadu.com (out-174.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.174]) (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 5ACC61F9EBA for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:16:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729012592; cv=none; b=Qz9lSTJm/XssIMZ/6GaTSUrb5adbu9PW5iiOLUBEWd1kWV1btJDDCcbQJkNuh9N+PSNNyfj/yMbZZjWHaoNF5ujdazPA9RMXaSKgkfb+WatXMoTb37psrs+X5oack/05EjadVoS8qB+1+/J/5bvFG5cQsvlPexY7trJnLxq1+54= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729012592; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aqe7ZBAXHSE2gzwDaIJiDGMt8akPLQVMlvbhK5NT45Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DUGMhVPavMjaGhMBJ7Cmdx3DfvmyAbJO0gBjZboBAghOXzGaQzWABuG5T/ygAhb+oB/AlKVh9ptjRw4PDzzY2DPXCbmKDLrGw+zw28a8ahV8q3OtVPxfyWl3VR1AmuCpDvDI+a3XLXs21+SCqs5vTDdng4iBm1a6Xy/yMDPcBqs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=k9ysL/1I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="k9ysL/1I" Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:16:12 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1729012583; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yw0BRkFp5Fq3zNmseLDS7BgS3nwlhhSku9PTDEcx65A=; b=k9ysL/1Ifn3FGFggblukp1Eo7eWxiC94YkkDmiW+eIx7Z2qkCTpZr/39b66tE5EmHP5Ud8 yFPqwzKytZHX1ljq9MJbqNSmsUPocgUQ/PzredAkviNPxEBWqICQTKvMEcgPLoqVBC0nfM OOvIGjkIz7nkQq+w6IjgWj+mICM0Oe8= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: David Woodhouse Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Jonathan Corbet , Marc Zyngier , James Morse , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Shuah Khan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Francesco Lavra , Miguel Luis Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: selftests: Add test for PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 Message-ID: References: <20240926184546.833516-1-dwmw2@infradead.org> <20240926184546.833516-5-dwmw2@infradead.org> <408b137dbf60ff4d189cbd98b7cf8cd833579f61.camel@infradead.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 09:05:18AM -0700, Oliver Upton wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 10:28:10AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-10-01 at 08:33 -0700, Oliver Upton wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 07:37:59PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > +       vm = setup_vm(guest_test_system_off2, &source, &target); > > > > +       vcpu_get_reg(target, KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION, &psci_version); > > > > +       TEST_ASSERT(psci_version >= PSCI_VERSION(0, 2), > > > > +                   "Unexpected PSCI version %lu.%lu", > > > > +                   PSCI_VERSION_MAJOR(psci_version), > > > > +                   PSCI_VERSION_MINOR(psci_version)); > > > > + > > > > +       if (psci_version < PSCI_VERSION(1,3)) > > > > +               goto skip; > > > > > > I'm not following this. Is there a particular reason why we'd want to > > > skip for v1.2 and fail the test for anything less than that? > > > > These tests unconditionally set KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2 in setup_vm(). > > Which is probably OK assuming support for that that predates > > KVM_CAP_ARM_SYSTEM_SUSPEND (which is already a TEST_REQUIRE() right at > > the start). > > > > So the world is very broken if KVM actually starts a VM but the version > > isn't at least 0.2, and it seemed like it warranted an actual failure. > > If we're looking at this from a testing lens then KVM coming up with any > PSCI version other than KVM_ARM_PSCI_LATEST (i.e. v1.3) is a bug. So > maybe we can tighten that assertion because... > > > > Just do TEST_REQUIRE(psci_version >= PSCI_VERSION(1, 3)), it makes the > > > requirements obvious in the case someone runs new selftests on an old > > > kernel. > > > > I don't think we want to put that in main() and skip the other checks > > that would run on earlier kernels. > > Running KVM selftests on older kernels in a meaningful way isn't > something we support. At all. An example of this is commit > 8a53e1302133 ("KVM: selftests: Require KVM_CAP_USER_MEMORY2 for > tests that create memslots"), which skips ~everything for kernels older > than 6.8. > > > (Even if we had easy access to > > psci_version without actually running a test and starting a VM). > > > > I could put it into host_test_system_off2() which runs last (and > > comment the invocations in main() to say that they're in increasing > > order of PSCI version) to accommodate such). But then it seems that I'd > > be the target of this comment in ksft_exit_skip()... > > > > /* > > * FIXME: several tests misuse ksft_exit_skip so produce > > * something sensible if some tests have already been run > > * or a plan has been printed. Those tests should use > > * ksft_test_result_skip or ksft_exit_fail_msg instead. > > */ > > > > I suspect the real answer here is that the individual tests here be > > calling ksft_test_result_pass(), and the system_off2 one should call > > ksft_test_result_skip() if it skips? > > modulo a few one-offs, KVM selftests doesn't use the kselftest harness > so it isn't subject to this comment. Since there's no test plan, we can > skip at any time. > > > I'll add an explicit comment about the 0.2 check though, saying that it > > should never happen so we might as well have the ASSERT for it. > > After looking at this again, I think we should do one of the following: > > - TEST_REQUIRE() that the PSCI version is at least v1.3, making the > dependency clear on older kernels. > > - TEST_REQUIRE() for v1.3, which would provide better test coverage on > upstream. Sorry, I meant TEST_ASSERT() here. > -- > Thanks, > Oliver >