Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 13/16] arm/arm64: ITS: INT functional tests

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:54:09PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> Triggers LPIs through the INT command.
> 
> the test checks the LPI hits the right CPU and triggers
> the right LPI intid, ie. the translation is correct.
> 
> Updates to the config table also are tested, along with inv
> and invall commands.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arm/gic.c                | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arm/unittests.cfg        |   6 ++
>  lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h |  14 ++++
>  3 files changed, 194 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index 3597ac3..7f701a1 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static struct gic *gic;
>  static int acked[NR_CPUS], spurious[NR_CPUS];
>  static int bad_sender[NR_CPUS], bad_irq[NR_CPUS];
>  static cpumask_t ready;
> +static struct its_stats lpi_stats;
>  
>  static void nr_cpu_check(int nr)
>  {
> @@ -158,6 +159,54 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void lpi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
> +{
> +	u32 irqstat = gic_read_iar();
> +	int irqnr = gic_iar_irqnr(irqstat);
> +
> +	gic_write_eoir(irqstat);
> +	if (irqnr < 8192)
> +		report(false, "Unexpected non LPI interrupt received");
> +	smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_stats_expect */
> +	lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id = smp_processor_id();
> +	lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id = irqnr;
> +	smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_lpi_stats */
> +}
> +
> +static void lpi_stats_expect(int exp_cpu_id, int exp_lpi_id)
> +{
> +	lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id = exp_cpu_id;
> +	lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id = exp_lpi_id;
> +	lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id = -1;
> +	lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id = -1;
> +	smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in handler */
> +}
> +
> +static void check_lpi_stats(void)
> +{
> +	mdelay(100);
> +	smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_handler */
> +	if ((lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id != lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id) ||
> +	    (lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id != lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id)) {
> +		if (lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id == -1 &&
> +		    lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id == -1) {
> +			report(false,
> +			       "No LPI received whereas (cpuid=%d, intid=%d) "
> +			       "was expected", lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id,
> +			       lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id);
> +		} else {
> +			report(false, "Unexpected LPI (cpuid=%d, intid=%d)",
> +			       lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id,
> +			       lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id);
> +		}
> +	} else if (lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id != -1) {
> +		report(true, "LPI %d on CPU %d", lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id,
> +		       lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id);
> +	} else {
> +		report(true, "no LPI received, as expected");
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static void gicv2_ipi_send_self(void)
>  {
>  	writel(2 << 24 | IPI_IRQ, gicv2_dist_base() + GICD_SGIR);
> @@ -241,6 +290,14 @@ static void ipi_test(void *data __unused)
>  		ipi_recv();
>  }
>  
> +static void secondary_lpi_test(void)
> +{
> +	setup_irq(lpi_handler);
> +	cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &ready);
> +	while (1)
> +		wfi();
> +}
> +
>  static struct gic gicv2 = {
>  	.ipi = {
>  		.send_self = gicv2_ipi_send_self,
> @@ -551,6 +608,120 @@ static void test_its_baser(void)
>  	report_info("collection baser entry_size = 0x%x", coll_baser->esz);
>  }
>  
> +static int its_prerequisites(int nb_cpus)
> +{
> +	int cpu;
> +
> +	if (!gicv3_its_base()) {
> +		report_skip("No ITS, skip ...");
> +		return -1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (nr_cpus < 4) {
> +		report_skip("Test requires at least %d vcpus", nb_cpus);
> +		return -1;

We have nr_cpu_check() in arm/gic.c that does a report_abort for this
case. Is there a reason to do report_skip instead of report_abort?

Also do you plan to return more than 0 - success, -1 - failure? If not,
then this could be a bool function.

> +	}
> +
> +	stats_reset();
> +
> +	setup_irq(lpi_handler);
> +
> +	for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> +		if (cpu == 0)
> +			continue;
> +		smp_boot_secondary(cpu, secondary_lpi_test);
> +	}
> +	wait_on_ready();
> +
> +	its_enable_defaults();
> +
> +	lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_its_trigger(void)
> +{
> +	struct its_collection *col3, *col2;
> +	struct its_device *dev2, *dev7;
> +
> +	if (its_prerequisites(4))
> +		return;
> +
> +	dev2 = its_create_device(2 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */);
> +	dev7 = its_create_device(7 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */);
> +
> +	col3 = its_create_collection(3 /* col id */, 3/* target PE */);
> +	col2 = its_create_collection(2 /* col id */, 2/* target PE */);
> +
> +	set_lpi_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
> +	set_lpi_config(8196, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
> +
> +	its_send_invall(col2);
> +	its_send_invall(col3);
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("int");
> +
> +	its_send_mapd(dev2, true);
> +	its_send_mapd(dev7, true);
> +
> +	its_send_mapc(col3, true);
> +	its_send_mapc(col2, true);
> +
> +	its_send_mapti(dev2, 8195 /* lpi id */,
> +		       20 /* event id */, col3);
> +	its_send_mapti(dev7, 8196 /* lpi id */,
> +		       255 /* event id */, col2);
> +
> +	lpi_stats_expect(3, 8195);
> +	its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +
> +	lpi_stats_expect(2, 8196);
> +	its_send_int(dev7, 255);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("inv/invall");
> +
> +	/* disable 8195 */
> +	set_lpi_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT & ~0x1);
> +	its_send_inv(dev2, 20);
> +
> +	lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> +	its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +
> +	set_lpi_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
> +	/* willingly forget the INVALL*/
> +	lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> +	its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +
> +	its_send_invall(col3);
> +	lpi_stats_expect(3, 8195);
> +	its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("mapd valid=false");
> +	its_send_mapd(dev2, false);
> +	lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> +	its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> +	check_lpi_stats();
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("mapc valid=false");
> +	its_send_mapc(col2, false);
> +	lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> +	its_send_int(dev7, 255);
> +	check_lpi_stats();

Missing prefix pop here

> +}
> +
> +

Extra blank line

>  int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  {
>  	if (!gic_init()) {
> @@ -581,6 +752,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	} else if (strcmp(argv[1], "mmio") == 0) {
>  		report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
>  		gic_test_mmio();
> +	} else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "its-trigger")) {
> +		report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> +		test_its_trigger();
>  		report_prefix_pop();

You stole the report_prefix_pop from the mmio tests above.

>  	} else if (strcmp(argv[1], "its-introspection") == 0) {
>  		report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> diff --git a/arm/unittests.cfg b/arm/unittests.cfg
> index 2234a0f..80a1d27 100644
> --- a/arm/unittests.cfg
> +++ b/arm/unittests.cfg
> @@ -134,6 +134,12 @@ smp = $MAX_SMP
>  extra_params = -machine gic-version=3 -append 'its-baser'
>  groups = its
>  
> +[its-trigger]
> +file = gic.flat
> +smp = $MAX_SMP
> +extra_params = -machine gic-version=3 -append 'its-trigger'
> +groups = its
> +
>  # Test PSCI emulation
>  [psci]
>  file = psci.flat
> diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h b/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h
> index 463174f..7d6f8fd 100644
> --- a/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h
> +++ b/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h
> @@ -123,6 +123,16 @@ struct its_data {
>  	u32 nr_collections;	/* Allocated Collections */
>  };
>  
> +struct its_event {
> +	int cpu_id;
> +	int lpi_id;
> +};
> +
> +struct its_stats {
> +	struct its_event expected;
> +	struct its_event observed;
> +};

These structures belong in arm/gic.c as they are unit test structions and
driver structures.

> +
>  extern struct its_data its_data;
>  
>  #define gicv3_its_base()		(its_data.base)
> @@ -139,6 +149,10 @@ extern void gicv3_rdist_ctrl_lpi(u32 redist, bool set);
>  extern void its_enable_defaults(void);
>  extern struct its_device *its_create_device(u32 dev_id, int nr_ites);
>  extern struct its_collection *its_create_collection(u32 col_id, u32 target_pe);
> +extern struct its_collection *its_create_collection(u32 col_id, u32 target);

Extra definition of its_create_collection?

> +
> +extern void set_lpi_config(int n, u8 val);

Please rename: lpi_set_config

> +extern u8 get_lpi_config(int n);

get_lpi_config doesn't seem to exist.

>  
>  extern void its_send_mapd(struct its_device *dev, int valid);
>  extern void its_send_mapc(struct its_collection *col, int valid);
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>

Thanks,
drew