| Message ID | 20240325090048.1423908-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 2760c51b8040d7cffedc337939e7475a17cc4b19 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests: iommu: add config needed for iommufd_fail_nth | expand |
Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't
terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm
finding failed tests.
@@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking)
assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0);
vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
mmap_flags, -1, 0);
- assert(vrc == self->buffer);
+ assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ???
On x86:
# Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
On ARM64:
# Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
The log files are attached.
On 3/25/24 2:00 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> Add FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS and FAILSLAB configurations which are
> needed by iommufd_fail_nth test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
> ---
> While building and running these tests on x86, defconfig had these
> configs enabled. But ARM64's defconfig doesn't enable these configs.
> Hence the config options are being added explicitly in this patch.
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config b/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config
> index 110d73917615d..02a2a1b267c1e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> CONFIG_IOMMUFD=y
> +CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS=y
> CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y
> CONFIG_IOMMUFD_TEST=y
> +CONFIG_FAILSLAB=y
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't > terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm > finding failed tests. > > @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) > assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); > vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > mmap_flags, -1, 0); > - assert(vrc == self->buffer); > + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? > > On x86: > # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > On ARM64: > # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > The log files are attached. You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages Jason
On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >> finding failed tests. >> >> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >> >> On x86: >> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >> On ARM64: >> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >> >> The log files are attached. > > You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process > > echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. cat /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages 1024 ./iommufd ... # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > Jason >
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > >> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't > >> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm > >> finding failed tests. > >> > >> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) > >> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); > >> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > >> mmap_flags, -1, 0); > >> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); > >> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? > >> > >> On x86: > >> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > >> On ARM64: > >> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > >> > >> The log files are attached. > > > > You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process > > > > echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages > After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. > But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap > not ok 139 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > not ok 140 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap > not ok 144 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > not ok 145 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap > not ok 149 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > not ok 150 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap > not ok 159 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > not ok 160 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap > not ok 164 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > not ok 165 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap > not ok 169 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap > # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... > # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) > # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > not ok 170 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear
On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>> finding failed tests. >>>> >>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>> >>>> On x86: >>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>> On ARM64: >>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>> >>>> The log files are attached. >>> >>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>> >>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. > > Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? > Definitely strange, I'll have a look. So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's hasn't set those bits. For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing that I can think of that affected mock domain. Muhammad, could you paste your kconfig? >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap >> not ok 139 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> not ok 140 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap >> not ok 144 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> not ok 145 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap >> not ok 149 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> not ok 150 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap >> not ok 159 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> not ok 160 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap >> not ok 164 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> not ok 165 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap >> not ok 169 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap > >> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> not ok 170 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >
On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: > On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>> >>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>> >>>>> On x86: >>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>> On ARM64: >>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>> >>>>> The log files are attached. >>>> >>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>> >>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >> >> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >> > Definitely strange, I'll have a look. > > So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it > is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's > hasn't set those bits. > > For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the > typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing > that I can think of that affected mock domain. The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. > > Muhammad, could you paste your kconfig? > >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap >>> not ok 139 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >>> not ok 140 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap >>> not ok 144 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >>> not ok 145 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap >>> not ok 149 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >>> not ok 150 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty640k.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap >>> not ok 159 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >>> not ok 160 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty128M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap >>> not ok 164 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >>> not ok 165 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap >>> not ok 169 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap >> >>> # RUN iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear ... >>> # iommufd_utils.h:374:get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear:Expected j < npte (1) == test_bit(i + j, (unsigned long *)bitmap) (0) >>> # get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear: Test terminated by assertion >>> # FAIL iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >>> not ok 170 iommufd_dirty_tracking.domain_dirty256M_huge.get_dirty_bitmap_no_clear >> >
On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>>> >>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>>> >>>>>> On x86: >>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>> On ARM64: >>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>> >>>>>> The log files are attached. >>>>> >>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>>> >>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >>> >>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >>> >> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. >> >> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it >> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's >> hasn't set those bits. >> >> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the >> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing >> that I can think of that affected mock domain. > The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( Thus no bits are being set.
On 3/27/24 11:09 PM, Joao Martins wrote: > On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >> On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >>> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On x86: >>>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>> On ARM64: >>>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The log files are attached. >>>>>> >>>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>>>> >>>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >>>> >>>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >>>> >>> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. >>> >>> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it >>> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's >>> hasn't set those bits. >>> >>> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the >>> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing >>> that I can think of that affected mock domain. >> The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. > > Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( I'll retest with this config and update the patch to include it in the config fragment needed for this test. Once we add all required config options in config fragment, the test should never fail. Somehow this gets included in the x86, but not on ARM. > > Thus no bits are being set. >
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:09:37PM +0000, Joao Martins wrote: > On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > > On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: > >> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > >>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > >>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't > >>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm > >>>>>> finding failed tests. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) > >>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); > >>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > >>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); > >>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); > >>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On x86: > >>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > >>>>>> On ARM64: > >>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The log files are attached. > >>>>> > >>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process > >>>>> > >>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages > >>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. > >>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. > >>> > >>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? > >>> > >> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. > >> > >> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it > >> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's > >> hasn't set those bits. > >> > >> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the > >> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing > >> that I can think of that affected mock domain. > > The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. > > Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( > > Thus no bits are being set. Oh! --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ config IOMMUFD_TEST depends on DEBUG_KERNEL depends on FAULT_INJECTION depends on RUNTIME_TESTING_MENU + select IOMMUFD_DRIVER default n help This is dangerous, do not enable unless running ??? Jason
On 27/03/2024 18:17, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 3/27/24 11:09 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >> On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >>>> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On x86: >>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>> On ARM64: >>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The log files are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>>>>> >>>>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>>>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>>>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >>>>> >>>>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >>>>> >>>> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. >>>> >>>> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it >>>> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's >>>> hasn't set those bits. >>>> >>>> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the >>>> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing >>>> that I can think of that affected mock domain. >>> The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. >> >> Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( > I'll retest with this config and update the patch to include it in the > config fragment needed for this test. Once we add all required config > options in config fragment, the test should never fail. Somehow this gets > included in the x86, but not on ARM. The option is automatically selected by an user of iova_bitmap_set(). x86 has AMD and Intel IOMMUs which use it and auto selected (ARM64 doesn't yet, but soon to be a reality). Some vfio drivers get it auto-selected it as well. But I forgot to do the same thing for iommufd-test kconfig in commit a9af47e382a ("iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP") where mock domain also uses iova_bitmap_set(). So your patch is likely not the right place to set CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER=y. See Jason's snip on auto-selecting if IOMMUFD_TEST is set.
On 27/03/2024 18:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:09:37PM +0000, Joao Martins wrote: >> On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >>>> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On x86: >>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>> On ARM64: >>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The log files are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>>>>> >>>>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>>>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>>>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >>>>> >>>>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >>>>> >>>> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. >>>> >>>> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it >>>> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's >>>> hasn't set those bits. >>>> >>>> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the >>>> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing >>>> that I can think of that affected mock domain. >>> The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. >> >> Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( >> >> Thus no bits are being set. > > Oh! > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ config IOMMUFD_TEST > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL > depends on FAULT_INJECTION > depends on RUNTIME_TESTING_MENU > + select IOMMUFD_DRIVER > default n > help > This is dangerous, do not enable unless running > > > ??? Yeap. It probably needs a: Fixes: a9af47e382a ("iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_BITMAP")
On 3/27/24 11:20 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:09:37PM +0000, Joao Martins wrote: >> On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >>>> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On x86: >>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>> On ARM64: >>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The log files are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>>>>> >>>>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>>>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>>>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >>>>> >>>>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >>>>> >>>> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. >>>> >>>> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it >>>> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's >>>> hasn't set those bits. >>>> >>>> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the >>>> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing >>>> that I can think of that affected mock domain. >>> The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. >> >> Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( >> >> Thus no bits are being set. > > Oh! > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ config IOMMUFD_TEST > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL > depends on FAULT_INJECTION > depends on RUNTIME_TESTING_MENU > + select IOMMUFD_DRIVER > default n > help > This is dangerous, do not enable unless running > Tested this patch on my system and it fixes all issues for ARM64. Please add tag for this Kconfig patch: Tested by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> Also please accept the patch in this current series. > > ??? > > Jason
On 3/28/24 1:13 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 3/27/24 11:20 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:09:37PM +0000, Joao Martins wrote: >>> On 27/03/2024 17:49, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>> On 3/27/24 7:59 PM, Joao Martins wrote: >>>>> On 27/03/2024 11:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:14:25PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/26/24 8:03 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:09:34PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>>>>>> Even after applying this config patch and following snippet (which doesn't >>>>>>>>> terminate the program if mmap doesn't allocate exactly as the hint), I'm >>>>>>>>> finding failed tests. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1746,7 +1748,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_dirty_tracking) >>>>>>>>> assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0); >>>>>>>>> vrc = mmap(self->buffer, variant->buffer_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, >>>>>>>>> mmap_flags, -1, 0); >>>>>>>>> - assert(vrc == self->buffer); >>>>>>>>> + assert(vrc == self->buffer);// ??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On x86: >>>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:176 fail:4 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>>> On ARM64: >>>>>>>>> # Totals: pass:166 fail:14 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The log files are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You probably don't have enough transparent huge pages available to the process >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> echo 1024 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages >>>>>>> After making huge pages available, the iommufd test always passed on x86. >>>>>>> But there are still failures on arm64. I'm looking into the failures. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh that is really strange. Joao? Nicolin? >>>>>> >>>>> Definitely strange, I'll have a look. >>>>> >>>>> So it set the expected number of dirty bits as that assert doesn't fail, but it >>>>> is failing when we check that even bits are set but not odd ones. Like it's >>>>> hasn't set those bits. >>>>> >>>>> For mock tests there should be no difference between x86 and ARM assuming the >>>>> typical 4K page-size. Maybe this is 64k base pages in ARM? That's the only thing >>>>> that I can think of that affected mock domain. >>>> The config is attached. The defaults are being used i.e., 4k page. >>> >>> Looks like CONFIG_IOMMUFD_DRIVER is not defined :( >>> >>> Thus no bits are being set. >> >> Oh! >> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/Kconfig >> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ config IOMMUFD_TEST >> depends on DEBUG_KERNEL >> depends on FAULT_INJECTION >> depends on RUNTIME_TESTING_MENU >> + select IOMMUFD_DRIVER >> default n >> help >> This is dangerous, do not enable unless running >> > Tested this patch on my system and it fixes all issues for ARM64. Please > add tag for this Kconfig patch: > Tested by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> > > Also please accept the patch in this current series. Please let me know if you need me to send the config patch. Please accept the config patch as well. >> >> ??? >> >> Jason >
On 4/5/24 5:10 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:11:41PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >> On 3/25/24 2:00 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> Add FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS and FAILSLAB configurations which are >>> needed by iommufd_fail_nth test. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> >>> --- >>> While building and running these tests on x86, defconfig had these >>> configs enabled. But ARM64's defconfig doesn't enable these configs. >>> Hence the config options are being added explicitly in this patch. >> Please disregard this extra comment. Overall this patch is needed to enable >> these config options of x86 and ARM both. > > I picked this and the other patch up, thanks Not sure why but I'm unable to find this patch in next and in your tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgg/iommufd.git/log/?h=for-next Maybe this patch was missed? > > Jason >
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config b/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config index 110d73917615d..02a2a1b267c1e 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ CONFIG_IOMMUFD=y +CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS=y CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y CONFIG_IOMMUFD_TEST=y +CONFIG_FAILSLAB=y
Add FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS and FAILSLAB configurations which are needed by iommufd_fail_nth test. Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> --- While building and running these tests on x86, defconfig had these configs enabled. But ARM64's defconfig doesn't enable these configs. Hence the config options are being added explicitly in this patch. --- tools/testing/selftests/iommu/config | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)