From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D76BEAE3; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 01:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.15 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706752308; cv=none; b=iJTmQ5MIkD95SK4l2lqgclsLg8GY5hP/yaUXBsfHz46IgMduUi831L3s0LxDwruQSSy7uTmwy7yQQt6kpjrLud57hW5kI3yfRHKGeZcVMwdOBB5ZC5OE1yFP1fdWu/E4qQmiCPYYD24Lj8NIM0fsvkwqw9hvZzNFuWprs4zb14I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706752308; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uZifwHdGnq05hwLYvjFee+ZPbSja/gXSEwnvnH97HpA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=i2mbK7Ug3sbotFKt7Nu+IhYGBn8WVDEeOIIu+pkFRA+0VuYYSowDb5gE+dddwUutuedPl6qGvQv9Nr5ABevp3xvWkbpj3eKeRhsZ51UoYbwjpxcj/Johi0kMKUgD+LGfFADEV0HYMWEpEOzuUB79oJIKu+FENg4jOw0gDfd7UZo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=To7JlSp2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="To7JlSp2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1706752307; x=1738288307; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uZifwHdGnq05hwLYvjFee+ZPbSja/gXSEwnvnH97HpA=; b=To7JlSp2Yl8PJw2sLNPDlo2Hv3yI/NgDNLIxKSSIPcpa0dMogOV22wWz rzoUeCcZRrO5Wd07hfJJAZTYIc7nML4Zf8pNi1FIGAJLM1hDjyDCk7sCd nWLWICxu5+7cED0MDg0uRKZJHG9Qork1EzEdUL1mhKz1kwmv4Bs2/t8ad o2A+JadUiS8paF1C7sqJ8iG40FUAqNbIxs+CovFKHDc9/II/jUNwjeOzT ZJfx0mQDJQLeH26BLn430tPcB7ihqgBBu7gw4v73X2cvuN3x0/q38BUBA lsGD5Z6U9V9FoBq0yCu3MDxJccGnLlzWBZd08SLe6JnwUzOILBjW/d76o Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10969"; a="3643680" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,233,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="3643680" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orvoesa107.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2024 17:51:46 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10969"; a="961777969" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,233,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="961777969" Received: from dapengmi-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.93.12.33]) ([10.93.12.33]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2024 17:51:43 -0800 Message-ID: <50507559-ffb6-4340-a3ac-c0fdba3c9ab8@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:51:41 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 16/29] KVM: selftests: Test Intel PMU architectural events on gp counters Content-Language: en-US To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kan Liang , Jim Mattson , Jinrong Liang , Aaron Lewis , Like Xu References: <20240109230250.424295-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240109230250.424295-17-seanjc@google.com> <5f51fda5-bc07-42ac-a723-d09d90136961@linux.intel.com> From: "Mi, Dapeng" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/31/2024 11:31 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote: >> BTW, I have a patch series to do the bug fixes and improvements for >> kvm-unit-tests/pmu test. (some improvement ideas come from this patchset.) >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240103031409.2504051-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com/ >> >> Could you please kindly review them? Thanks. > Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. I am overloaded > with KVM/kernel reviews as it is, so I don't expect to have cycles for KUT reviews > in the near future. > > And for PMU tests in particular, I really want to get selftests to the point where > the PMU selftests are a superset of the PMU KUT tests so that we can drop the KUT > versions. In short, reviewing PMU KUT changes is very far down my todo list. Yeah, It's good and convenient that we can have one-stop test suite to verify the PMU functions, so we don't need to verify the PMU functions each time with KUT/PMU test and selftest/pmu test independently. While it looks KUT/PMU test is still broadly used to verify KVM PMU features by many users, and the patchset mainly fixes several KUT/PMU bugs which would cause false alarms. If these bugs are not fixed, they would mislead the users. Yeah, patch reviewing takes much time and effort, thanks a lot for you reviewing our patches in the past, and hope you can review this patchset when you are free.