[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1054916754.30218.1630109180443.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 20:06:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: dvhart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, gor <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-csky <linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mips <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Foley <pefoley@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: selftests: Add a test for KVM_RUN+rseq to
detect task migration bugs
----- On Aug 27, 2021, at 7:23 PM, Sean Christopherson seanjc@...gle.com wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
>> Does it reproduce if we randomize the delay to have it picked randomly from 0us
>> to 100us (with 1us step) ? It would remove a lot of the needs for arch-specific
>> magic delay value.
>
> My less-than-scientific testing shows that it can reproduce at delays up to
> ~500us,
> but above ~10us the reproducibility starts to drop. The bug still reproduces
> reliably, it just takes more iterations, and obviously the test runs a bit
> slower.
>
> Any objection to using a 1-10us delay, e.g. a simple usleep((i % 10) + 1)?
Works for me, thanks!
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists