From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic tests
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 01:13:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zc79I5VDSaFnb4xj@ghost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6aaa4b89-a967-4b19-b4bf-a1ad5c8e9faa@roeck-us.net>
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:09:42PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/15/24 21:54, Helge Deller wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >
> > Can you please give a pointer to this test code?
> > I'm happy to try it on real hardware.
> >
> You should also see the problem if you use v7 of Charlie's checksum
> unit test fixes.
>
> I submitted the qemu fix (or at least what I think the fix should be)
> a couple of minutes ago.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20240216053415.2163286-1-linux@roeck-us.net/
>
> > > It is quite easy to show that carry is always set after executing ldd
> > > on an unaligned address. That is also why I know for sure that the
> > > problem is not seen with ldw on unaligned addresses.
> > Interesting.
>
> Ultimately it wasn't surprising, with the unusual carry bit
> implementation on hppa. The upper 8 carry bits were not masked
> correctly when returning from a trap or interrupt.
Tangential question, but why does Linux need to save and restore the PSW
if that is already handled by the hardware? I am missing something.
- Charlie
>
> > In general I think it's quite important to differentiate between
> > running on qemu or running on physical hardware.
>
> I know, that makes testing always tricky (not just with this
> architecture) because it is often not obvious if the problem
> is a problem in the tested code or a problem in the emulation.
>
> > Qemu just recently got 64-bit support, and it's not yet behaving
> > like real hardware. One thing I noticed is, that read hardware
> > does not seem to jump into the exception handler twice, while
> > qemu does. So, if you run into an exception (e.g. unaligned ldd)
> > then if a second exception happens in the fault handler (e.g. second
> > unaligned ldd to resolve wrongly-coded code lookup), you will
> > get different behaviour between hardware and emulation.
>
> Hmm, interesting. Makes me wonder how the real hardware handles such
> double traps.
>
> > This is also the reason why qemu still fails to emulate newer
> > 64-bit Linux kernels which uses kernel modules.
> >
> I don't use modules in my testing, so I'll leave that alone for
> anther day.
>
> Cheers,
> Guenter
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-16 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-14 21:41 [PATCH v8 0/2] lib: checksum: Fix issues with checksum tests Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-14 21:41 ` [PATCH v8 1/2] lib: checksum: Fix type casting in checksum kunits Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-14 21:41 ` [PATCH v8 2/2] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic tests Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-14 23:03 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 1:30 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 1:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 3:00 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 3:35 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 4:11 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 8:56 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 15:36 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 16:30 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 16:51 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 17:13 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 17:29 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 15:22 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16 5:54 ` Helge Deller
2024-02-16 5:25 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16 7:31 ` Helge Deller
2024-02-16 6:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16 6:09 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16 6:13 ` Charlie Jenkins [this message]
2024-02-16 12:05 ` Helge Deller
2024-02-16 18:22 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 10:27 ` David Laight
2024-02-15 15:44 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 16:51 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 17:06 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 17:25 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 18:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 18:56 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 21:00 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 21:08 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 18:42 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 19:41 ` David Laight
2024-02-15 19:42 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-16 5:00 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 1:24 ` Guenter Roeck
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=Zc79I5VDSaFnb4xj@ghost \
--to=charlie@rivosinc.com \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox