We have confirmed that Power9 VM is officially supported P9 PowerVM supported for Jammy and newer [1].
We will skip testing this on Bionic. But this is still a valid bug report, similar failures have been found on these instances with Jammy in s2025.03.17: # selftests: powerpc/ptrace: ptrace-tm-tar # test: ptrace_tm_tar # tags: git_version:unknown # [User Read (Running)] TAR: 40 PPR: 18000000000000 DSCR: 400 # [Ptrace Read (Running)] TAR: 20 PPR: 8000000000000 DSCR: 200 # [Ptrace Read (Checkpointed)] TAR: 10 PPR: 4000000000000 DSCR: 100 # [Ptrace Write (Checkpointed)] TAR: 40 PPR: 10000000000000 DSCR: 400 # failure: ptrace_tm_tar # selftests: powerpc/ptrace: ptrace-tm-spd-tar # test: ptrace_tm_spd_tar # tags: git_version:unknown # [User Read (Running)] TAR: 40 PPR: 18000000000000 DSCR: 400 # [Ptrace Read (Running)] TAR: 30 PPR: c000000000000 DSCR: 300 # [Ptrace Read (Checkpointed)] TAR: 10 PPR: 4000000000000 DSCR: 100 # [Ptrace Write (Checkpointed)] TAR: 40 PPR: 10000000000000 DSCR: 400 # failure: ptrace_tm_spd_tar I think we should re-use this bug by modifying the bug title and content. As Koichiro has already done a thorough investigation here. [1] https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/linux-on-systems?topic=lpo-linux-distributions-virtualization-options-power8-power9-linux-power-systems ** Tags removed: 5.4 ** Tags added: 5.15 jammy ** Summary changed: - powerpc/ptrace:{ptrace-tm-tar, ptrace-tm-spd-tar} fail with PPR discrepancy on certain instance types with B:hwe-5.4 + powerpc/ptrace:{ptrace-tm-tar, ptrace-tm-spd-tar} fail with PPR discrepancy on Power9 PowerVM with j/linux -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Canonical Platform QA Team, which is subscribed to ubuntu-kernel-tests. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2106564 Title: powerpc/ptrace:{ptrace-tm-tar, ptrace-tm-spd-tar} fail with PPR discrepancy on Power9 PowerVM with j/linux Status in ubuntu-kernel-tests: New Bug description: Failure observed on bionic linux-hwe-5.4 5.4.0-214.234~18.04.1 (2025.03.17) on metal P9g-LPAR01kernel. The failure was consistently observed across three runs (3/3. 100%) on this machine. Log output: [powerpc/ptrace:ptrace-tm-tar] # selftests: powerpc/ptrace: ptrace-tm-tar # test: ptrace_tm_tar # tags: git_version:unknown (X1) # [User Read (Running)] TAR: 40 PPR: 4000000000000 DSCR: 400 # [Ptrace Read (Running)] TAR: 20 PPR: 8000000000000 DSCR: 200 # [Ptrace Read (Checkpointed)] TAR: 10 PPR: 4000000000000 DSCR: 100 (X2) # [Ptrace Write (Checkpointed)] TAR: 40 PPR: 10000000000000 DSCR: 400 # failure: ptrace_tm_tar not ok 1 selftests: powerpc/ptrace: ptrace-tm-tar # exit=1 [powerpc/ptrace:ptrace-tm-spd-tar] # selftests: powerpc/ptrace: ptrace-tm-spd-tar # test: ptrace_tm_spd_tar # tags: git_version:unknown (X3) # [User Read (Running)] TAR: 40 PPR: 18000000000000 DSCR: 400 # [Ptrace Read (Running)] TAR: 30 PPR: c000000000000 DSCR: 300 # [Ptrace Read (Checkpointed)] TAR: 10 PPR: 4000000000000 DSCR: 100 (X4) # [Ptrace Write (Checkpointed)] TAR: 40 PPR: 10000000000000 DSCR: 400 # failure: ptrace_tm_spd_tar not ok 1 selftests: powerpc/ptrace: ptrace-tm-spd-tar # exit=1 * At (X3) above, PPR shoud've been 10000000000000 (Normal) as set at (X4) as the transaction is aborted, but it was read as 18000000000000 (High). Neither tm_spd_tar() nor trace_tm_spd_tar() (via ptrace) set this value (i.e. or 3,3,3) inside or outside the transaction. Given this should be an LPAR guest from its naming, its hypervisor side might have done something unexpected. * At (X1) above, PPR should've been 10000000000000 (Normal) as set at (X2), but it was read as 4000000000000 (Very low). Even though (X1) indicates the possibility that only updated CPPR failed to be read by tm_tar()'s mfspr(SPRN_PPR) for some reason (*notice that TAR and DSCR values are correctly read by mfspr as shown in the log), it's likely that this is just a symptom caused by unexpected behavior from the hypervisor, as observed at (X3). Ref. kernel doc on POWER9 TM issues: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/arch/powerpc/transactional_memory.html#power9 P9g-LPAR01kernel is a new test instance type, so this is likely not a regression introduced in this SRU cycle. This test passed on other environments over many SRU cycles. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-kernel-tests/+bug/2106564/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ubuntu-qa Post to : canonical-ubuntu-qa@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ubuntu-qa More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
