From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD5CC433EF for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7528C60FDC for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233165AbhJYSbU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:31:20 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:28240 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230111AbhJYSbT (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:31:19 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 19PINXkl015214; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:57 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=1mvSTNGvLCV9PUnuowvpAPqkZCNOXCY1NojWMzHPPXY=; b=pQlDintzTv0LWhek4yEQ/KEGBFGTirSxupafObyOW6Dl0eZEiYpSzTTzLpLxp/7itLmm KO4mHqhVj6KgQnX6y53DlqwPZM8aY+40O2t0usSfbg76MBI/BruBFoTbT1wvHqvCL/8Y Kdm+Jo7So42OKfuGYScNWbdtKZncVHZSoF0TYIhZmyInnVN0L5gRr2qrPtR4MT3znhv+ nx24oSdjltc2lg2A7fChBephBSAKlKtmEhy8sQk6PK7FtwIc1omCOvFchdQsx62VG6+3 NLpg/o29BgVLgRx6FtljpNzyavqn5jOlEUJCw8gNQ5WIoyHJA6dc2InFSQFNc4S0Nk5o 4w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bx1gh0r0q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:57 +0000 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 19PISuBv007246; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:56 GMT Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bx1gh0qya-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 19PIHXpQ006162; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:54 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3bwqsteusf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:54 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 19PISoBE43385276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:50 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD384A4059; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0F1A4057; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-43c5434c-23b8-11b2-a85c-c4958fb47a68.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.19.138]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:28:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 2/2] s390x: Test specification exceptions during transaction To: Claudio Imbrenda , Janis Schoetterl-Glausch Cc: Thomas Huth , Janosch Frank , David Hildenbrand , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20211022120156.281567-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <20211022120156.281567-3-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <20211025193012.3be31938@p-imbrenda> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: <71c181b9-6216-dc89-5ab8-619e08d04538@de.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:28:49 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211025193012.3be31938@p-imbrenda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: NlwWvrJ3-zfnDHQ6oWGqrs-70TYxIeMG X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: GykHcxTWWroGpgAwKoh_SFbZoCSA7hAl X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-10-25_06,2021-10-25_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110250105 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Am 25.10.21 um 19:30 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:01:56 +0200 > Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > >> Program interruptions during transactional execution cause other >> interruption codes. >> Check that we see the expected code for (some) specification exceptions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch >> --- >> lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 1 + >> s390x/spec_ex.c | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 2 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >> index 40626d7..f7fb467 100644 >> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ struct psw { >> #define PSW_MASK_BA 0x0000000080000000UL >> #define PSW_MASK_64 (PSW_MASK_BA | PSW_MASK_EA) >> >> +#define CTL0_TRANSACT_EX_CTL (63 - 8) >> #define CTL0_LOW_ADDR_PROT (63 - 35) >> #define CTL0_EDAT (63 - 40) >> #define CTL0_IEP (63 - 43) >> diff --git a/s390x/spec_ex.c b/s390x/spec_ex.c >> index ec3322a..f3628bd 100644 >> --- a/s390x/spec_ex.c >> +++ b/s390x/spec_ex.c >> @@ -4,9 +4,14 @@ >> * >> * Specification exception test. >> * Tests that specification exceptions occur when expected. >> + * This includes specification exceptions occurring during transactional execution >> + * as these result in another interruption code (the transactional-execution-aborted >> + * bit is set). >> */ >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> #include >> >> @@ -92,18 +97,23 @@ static void not_even(void) >> struct spec_ex_trigger { >> const char *name; >> void (*func)(void); >> + bool transactable; >> void (*fixup)(void); >> }; >> >> static const struct spec_ex_trigger spec_ex_triggers[] = { >> - { "psw_bit_12_is_1", &psw_bit_12_is_1, &fixup_invalid_psw}, >> - { "bad_alignment", &bad_alignment, NULL}, >> - { "not_even", ¬_even, NULL}, >> - { NULL, NULL, NULL}, >> + { "psw_bit_12_is_1", &psw_bit_12_is_1, false, &fixup_invalid_psw}, >> + { "bad_alignment", &bad_alignment, true, NULL}, >> + { "not_even", ¬_even, true, NULL}, >> + { NULL, NULL, true, NULL}, >> }; >> >> struct args { >> uint64_t iterations; >> + uint64_t max_retries; >> + uint64_t suppress_info; >> + uint64_t max_failures; >> + bool diagnose; >> }; >> >> static void test_spec_ex(struct args *args, >> @@ -131,14 +141,132 @@ static void test_spec_ex(struct args *args, >> expected_pgm); >> } >> >> +#define TRANSACTION_COMPLETED 4 >> +#define TRANSACTION_MAX_RETRIES 5 >> + >> +/* NULL must be passed to __builtin_tbegin via constant, forbid diagnose from >> + * being NULL to keep things simple >> + */ >> +static int __attribute__((nonnull)) >> +with_transaction(void (*trigger)(void), struct __htm_tdb *diagnose) >> +{ >> + int cc; >> + > > if you want to be extra sure, put an assert here (although I'm not sure > how nonnull works, I have never seen it before) > >> + cc = __builtin_tbegin(diagnose); >> + if (cc == _HTM_TBEGIN_STARTED) { >> + trigger(); >> + __builtin_tend(); >> + return -TRANSACTION_COMPLETED; >> + } else { >> + return -cc; >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static int retry_transaction(const struct spec_ex_trigger *trigger, unsigned int max_retries, >> + struct __htm_tdb *tdb, uint16_t expected_pgm) >> +{ >> + int trans_result, i; >> + uint16_t pgm; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < max_retries; i++) { >> + expect_pgm_int(); >> + trans_result = with_transaction(trigger->func, tdb); >> + if (trans_result == -_HTM_TBEGIN_TRANSIENT) { >> + mb(); >> + pgm = lc->pgm_int_code; >> + if (pgm == 0) >> + continue; >> + else if (pgm == expected_pgm) >> + return 0; >> + } >> + return trans_result; >> + } >> + return -TRANSACTION_MAX_RETRIES; > > so this means that a test will be considered failed if the transaction > failed too many times? > this means that could fail if the test is run on busy system, even if > the host running the unit test is correct Can we use constrained transactions for this test? those will succeed.