Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests v1 4/6] s390x: smp: Create and use a non-waiting CPU stop

Claudio Imbrenda
2022-03-08T10:32:14Z

On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 14:03:45 -0500
Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 16:30 +0100, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 22:04:23 +0100
> > Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When stopping a CPU, kvm-unit-tests serializes/waits for everything
> > > to finish, in order to get a consistent result whenever those
> > > functions are used.
> > >
> > > But to test the SIGP STOP itself, these additional measures could
> > > mask other problems. For example, did the STOP work, or is the CPU
> > > still operating?
> > >
> > > Let's create a non-waiting SIGP STOP and use it here, to ensure
> > > that
> > > the CPU is correctly stopped. A smp_cpu_stopped() call will still
> > > be used to see that the SIGP STOP has been processed, and the state
> > > of the CPU can be used to determine whether the test passes/fails.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/s390x/smp.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > lib/s390x/smp.h | 1 +
> > > s390x/smp.c | 10 ++--------
> > > 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c
> > > index 368d6add..84e536e8 100644
> > > --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c
> > > +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c
> > > @@ -119,6 +119,31 @@ int smp_cpu_stop(uint16_t idx)
> > > return rc;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Functionally equivalent to smp_cpu_stop(), but without the
> > > + * elements that wait/serialize matters itself.
> > > + * Used to see if KVM itself is serialized correctly.
> > > + */
> > > +int smp_cpu_stop_nowait(uint16_t idx)
> > > +{
> > > + /* refuse to work on the boot CPU */
> > > + if (idx == 0)
> > > + return -1;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&lock);
> > > +
> > > + /* Don't suppress a CC2 with sigp_retry() */
> > > + if (smp_sigp(idx, SIGP_STOP, 0, NULL)) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&lock);
> > > + return -1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + cpus[idx].active = false;
> > > + spin_unlock(&lock);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t idx)
> > > {
> > > int rc;
> > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.h b/lib/s390x/smp.h
> > > index 1e69a7de..bae03dfd 100644
> > > --- a/lib/s390x/smp.h
> > > +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.h
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ bool smp_sense_running_status(uint16_t idx);
> > > int smp_cpu_restart(uint16_t idx);
> > > int smp_cpu_start(uint16_t idx, struct psw psw);
> > > int smp_cpu_stop(uint16_t idx);
> > > +int smp_cpu_stop_nowait(uint16_t idx);
> > > int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t idx);
> > > int smp_cpu_destroy(uint16_t idx);
> > > int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t idx, struct psw psw);
> > > diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
> > > index 50811bd0..11c2c673 100644
> > > --- a/s390x/smp.c
> > > +++ b/s390x/smp.c
> > > @@ -76,14 +76,8 @@ static void test_restart(void)
> > >
> > > static void test_stop(void)
> > > {
> > > - smp_cpu_stop(1);
> > > - /*
> > > - * The smp library waits for the CPU to shut down, but let's
> > > - * also do it here, so we don't rely on the library
> > > - * implementation
> > > - */
> > > - while (!smp_cpu_stopped(1)) {}
> > > - report_pass("stop");
> > > + smp_cpu_stop_nowait(1);
> >
> > can it happen that the SIGP STOP order is accepted, but the target
> > CPU
> > is still running (and not even busy)?
>
> Of course. A SIGP that's processed by userspace (which is many of them)
> injects a STOP IRQ back to the kernel, which means the CPU might not be
> stopped for some time. But...
>
> >
> > > + report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "stop");
> >
> > e.g. can this ^ check race with the actual stopping of the CPU?
>
> ...the smp_cpu_stopped() routine now loops on the CC2 that SIGP SENSE
> returns because of that pending IRQ. If SIGP SENSE returns CC0/1, then
> the CPU can correctly be identified stopped/operating, and the test can
> correctly pass/fail.

my question was: is it possible architecturally that there is a window
where the STOP order is accepted, but a SENSE on the target CPU still
successfully returns that the CPU is running?

in other words: is it specified architecturally that, once an order is
accepted for a target CPU, that CPU can't accept any other order (and
will return CC2), including SENSE, until the order has been completed
successfully?

>
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void test_stop_store_status(void)
>