Re: [PATCH 1/1] selftests: KVM: add test to print boottime wallclock

[Dongli Zhang]

Hi Sean and Andrew,

On 10/18/23 23:51, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:51:55PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023, Dongli Zhang wrote:
>>> As inspired by the discussion in [1], the boottime wallclock may drift due
>>> to the fact that the masterclock (or host monotonic clock) and kvmclock are
>>> calculated based on the algorithms in different domains.
>>>
>>> This is to introduce a testcase to print the boottime wallclock
>>> periodically to help diagnose the wallclock drift issue in the future.
>>>
>>> The idea is to wrmsr the MSR_KVM_WALL_CLOCK_NEW, and read the boottime
>>> wallclock nanoseconds immediately.
>>
>> This doesn't actually test anything of interest though.  IIUC, it requires a human
>> looking at the output for it to provide any value.  And it requires a manual
>> cancelation, which makes it even less suitable for selftests.
>>
>> I like the idea, e.g. I bet there are more utilities that could be written that
>> utilize the selftests infrastructure, just not sure what to do with this (assuming
>> it can't be massaged into an actual test).

Thank you very much for the suggestion.

Would that work if I turn it into a test:

1. Capture boottime_wallclock_01.
2. Wait for 10-second by default (configurable, e.g., max 60-second)
3. Capture boottime_wallclock_02.
4. Report error if drift.


I have another pvclock vCPU hotplug test with the same flow.

Thank you very much!

Dongli Zhang

> 
> Yes, there's definitely code overlap between selftests and [debug/test]
> utilities. For example, I snuck a utility into [1]. For that one, without
> any command line parameters it runs as a typical test. Given command line
> input, it behaves as a utility (which developers may use for additional
> platform-specific testing). It seems like we need a way to build and
> organize these types of things separately, i.e. a utility should probably
> be in tools/$DIR not tools/testing/selftests/$DIR. For [1], I don't have
> much of an excuse for not just splitting the two functionalities into two
> files, but, for KVM selftests, we'd need to find a way to share the
> framework.
> 
> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231011135610.122850-14-ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!LuJ92LOR4jVJfhj8M0J9MUqP7520s259wSzAdAL1cV0zNrzVB2W0F_5gpEVX_SoHeKuivIt-VIVB6jaN5EuIKA$ 
> 
> Thanks,
> drew