Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-47520-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <50507559-ffb6-4340-a3ac-c0fdba3c9ab8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:51:41 +0800
Precedence: bulk
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 <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
 Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
 Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>, Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
References: <20240109230250.424295-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20240109230250.424295-17-seanjc@google.com>
 <5f51fda5-bc07-42ac-a723-d09d90136961@linux.intel.com>
 <ZaGxNsrf_pUHkFiY@google.com>
 <cce0483f-539b-4be3-838d-af0ec91db8f0@linux.intel.com>
 <ZbmF9eM84cQhdvGf@google.com>
 <d24dc389-8e73-4a7a-9970-1022dcbfa39c@linux.intel.com>
 <Zbpn284rPe3pMBwI@google.com>
From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zbpn284rPe3pMBwI@google.com>
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.