Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add timer test case

From: Bibo Mao

Date: Wed Nov 26 2025 - 21:54:37 EST




On 2025/11/27 上午10:51, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 10:48 AM Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 2025/11/27 上午10:45, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 10:37 AM Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 2025/11/27 上午10:09, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 9:08 AM Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 2025/11/26 下午9:43, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 10:17 AM Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 2025/11/24 上午10:03, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 9:58 AM Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 2025/11/21 下午10:08, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, Bibo,

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 2:58 PM Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This patchset adds timer test case for LoongArch system, it is based
on common arch_timer test case. And it includes one-shot and period mode
timer interrupt test, software emulated timer function and time counter
test.
I test this series on top of 6.18-rc6 with Loongson-3A5000, sometimes
it passes, sometimes I get:
[root@fedora kvm]# ./arch_timer
Random seed: 0x6b8b4567
Guest assert failed, vcpu 2; stage; 0; iter: 1
==== Test Assertion Failure ====
loongarch/arch_timer.c:79: irq_iter == 0
pid=60138 tid=60142 errno=4 - Interrupted system call
1 0x00000001200037cf: test_vcpu_run 于 arch_timer.c:70
2 0x00007ffff2449f27: ?? ??:0
3 0x00007ffff24c0633: ?? ??:0
irq_iter = 0x1.
Guest period timer interrupt was not triggered within the specified
interval, try to increase the error margin by [-e] option.

Is this as expected, or something is wrong?
There is problem with that. In generic the vCPU task is rescheduled on
other CPUs or preempted, so period timer interrupt is not handled in
specified time.
Then this series need to be updated, or problem comes from other places?
I think this series need be updated, test success criteria with period
timer need consider this situation. Let me check how to handle this.
Any updates available?
It can be solved by modifying udelay() method with get_cycles() or using
cpu loop calculation method.

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/arch_timer.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/arch_timer.hYes, no common part for it, but it can be a common problem. If other
architectures have problems they should also modify their own
__delay(), right?
@@ -71,10 +71,17 @@ static inline void timer_irq_disable(void)

static inline void __delay(uint64_t cycles)
{
- uint64_t start = timer_get_cycles();
-
- while ((timer_get_cycles() - start) < cycles)
- cpu_relax();
+ uint64_t start, next, loops = 0;
+
+ start = timer_get_cycles();
+ while (loops < cycles) {
+ next = timer_get_cycles();
+ /* only count one cycle if VM is preempted */
+ if (next > start) {
+ loops++;
+ start = next;
+ }
+ }
}
Looks good. But ARM64 and RISC-V also use a simple implementation of
there is no period test on them.
I think the one-shot test can also have this problem if the CPU is
preempted for a very long time.

__delay(). So should this problem be thought of as a common problem?
If yes, maybe we can keep __delay() as is and wait for the common
parts to be fixed.
Also there is no common udelay() API, it is arch specific. Someone may
argue that skipping stolen cycles is not generic for __delay(), other
test cases want accurate cycles rather than skipping stolen cycles. It
is timer test case specific.

Or adding another api __delay_loops() or keep it as is and wait for
other architectures, there should be no common part for it.
Yes, no common part for it, but it can be a common problem. If other
architectures have problems they should also modify their own
__delay(), right?
yes, what to do then?
Merge window is coming, let's keep it as is. And this problem only
exist when the background load is high (so preemption happens easily),
I think this is not the usual case.
I am ok with it. Maybe it can improve in future :)

Regards
Bibo Mao

Huacai



Huacai


Regards
Bibo Mao

Huacai


Regards
Bibo Mao

Huacai


Regards
Bibo Mao

Huacai


Regards
Bibo Mao

Hucai

---
v2 ... v3:
1. Adjust order about patch 2 and patch 3
2. Add test case with alphabetical order
3. Merge one-shot and period timer interrupt test case into one
4. Only add LoongArch specific modification with common file
Makefile.kvm

v1 ... v2:
1. Restore PC and PRMD after exception handler
2. Split patch 4 into two small patches with period timer test and
time counter test
3. With time counter test, set time count with 0 when create VM. And
verify time count starts from 0 in guest code
---
Bibo Mao (6):
KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add system registers save and restore on
exception
KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add basic interfaces
KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add exception handler register interface
KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add timer interrupt test case
KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add SW emulated timer test
KVM: LoongArch: selftests: Add time counter test

tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
.../kvm/include/loongarch/arch_timer.h | 84 ++++++++
.../kvm/include/loongarch/processor.h | 81 +++++++-
.../selftests/kvm/lib/loongarch/exception.S | 6 +
.../selftests/kvm/lib/loongarch/processor.c | 47 ++++-
.../selftests/kvm/loongarch/arch_timer.c | 194 ++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 410 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/arch_timer.h
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/loongarch/arch_timer.c


base-commit: 23cb64fb76257309e396ea4cec8396d4a1dbae68
--
2.39.3