[PATCH v1 0/4] selftests: arm64: vec-syscfg updates

[PATCH v1 0/4] selftests: arm64: vec-syscfg updates

[Mark Brown]

This series fixes up a few issues introduced into vec-syscfg during
refactoring in the review process, then adds a new test which ensures
that the behaviour when we attempt to set a vector length which is not
supported by the current system matches what is documented in the SVE
ABI documentation.

Mark Brown (4):
  selftests: arm64: Fix printf() format mismatch in vec-syscfg
  selftests: arm64: Remove bogus error check on writing to files
  selftests: arm64: Fix and enable test for setting current VL in
    vec-syscfg
  selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)


base-commit: 6880fa6c56601bb8ed59df6c30fd390cc5f6dd8f
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH v1 0/4] selftests: arm64: vec-syscfg updates

[Mark Brown]

This series fixes up a few issues introduced into vec-syscfg during
refactoring in the review process, then adds a new test which ensures
that the behaviour when we attempt to set a vector length which is not
supported by the current system matches what is documented in the SVE
ABI documentation.

Mark Brown (4):
  selftests: arm64: Fix printf() format mismatch in vec-syscfg
  selftests: arm64: Remove bogus error check on writing to files
  selftests: arm64: Fix and enable test for setting current VL in
    vec-syscfg
  selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)


base-commit: 6880fa6c56601bb8ed59df6c30fd390cc5f6dd8f
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v1 1/4] selftests: arm64: Fix printf() format mismatch in vec-syscfg

[Mark Brown]

The format for this error message calls for the plain text version of the
error but we weren't supply it.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index c02071dcb563..b2de002ee325 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int get_child_rdvl(struct vec_data *data)
 
 		/* exec() a new binary which puts the VL on stdout */
 		ret = execl(data->rdvl_binary, data->rdvl_binary, NULL);
-		fprintf(stderr, "execl(%s) failed: %d\n",
+		fprintf(stderr, "execl(%s) failed: %d (%s)\n",
 			data->rdvl_binary, errno, strerror(errno));
 
 		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH v1 1/4] selftests: arm64: Fix printf() format mismatch in vec-syscfg

[Mark Brown]

The format for this error message calls for the plain text version of the
error but we weren't supply it.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index c02071dcb563..b2de002ee325 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int get_child_rdvl(struct vec_data *data)
 
 		/* exec() a new binary which puts the VL on stdout */
 		ret = execl(data->rdvl_binary, data->rdvl_binary, NULL);
-		fprintf(stderr, "execl(%s) failed: %d\n",
+		fprintf(stderr, "execl(%s) failed: %d (%s)\n",
 			data->rdvl_binary, errno, strerror(errno));
 
 		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v1 2/4] selftests: arm64: Remove bogus error check on writing to files

[Mark Brown]

Due to some refactoring with the error handling we ended up mangling things
so we never actually set ret and therefore shouldn't be checking it.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index b2de002ee325..d48d3ee1bc36 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -180,7 +180,6 @@ static int file_read_integer(const char *name, int *val)
 static int file_write_integer(const char *name, int val)
 {
 	FILE *f;
-	int ret;
 
 	f = fopen(name, "w");
 	if (!f) {
@@ -192,11 +191,6 @@ static int file_write_integer(const char *name, int val)
 
 	fprintf(f, "%d", val);
 	fclose(f);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		ksft_test_result_fail("Error writing %d to %s\n",
-				      val, name);
-		return -1;
-	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH v1 2/4] selftests: arm64: Remove bogus error check on writing to files

[Mark Brown]

Due to some refactoring with the error handling we ended up mangling things
so we never actually set ret and therefore shouldn't be checking it.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index b2de002ee325..d48d3ee1bc36 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -180,7 +180,6 @@ static int file_read_integer(const char *name, int *val)
 static int file_write_integer(const char *name, int val)
 {
 	FILE *f;
-	int ret;
 
 	f = fopen(name, "w");
 	if (!f) {
@@ -192,11 +191,6 @@ static int file_write_integer(const char *name, int val)
 
 	fprintf(f, "%d", val);
 	fclose(f);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		ksft_test_result_fail("Error writing %d to %s\n",
-				      val, name);
-		return -1;
-	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v1 3/4] selftests: arm64: Fix and enable test for setting current VL in vec-syscfg

[Mark Brown]

We had some test code for verifying that we can write the current VL via
the prctl() interface but the condition for the test was inverted which
wasn't noticed as it was never actually hooked up to the array of tests
we execute. Fix this.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index d48d3ee1bc36..9d6ac843e651 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -329,12 +329,9 @@ static void prctl_set_same(struct vec_data *data)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (cur_vl != data->rdvl())
-		ksft_test_result_pass("%s current VL is %d\n",
-				      data->name, ret);
-	else
-		ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() VL %d but RDVL is %d\n",
-				      data->name, ret, data->rdvl());
+	ksft_test_result(cur_vl == data->rdvl(),
+			 "%s set VL %d and have VL %d\n",
+			 data->name, cur_vl, data->rdvl());
 }
 
 /* Can we set a new VL for this process? */
@@ -555,6 +552,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
 	proc_write_max,
 
 	prctl_get,
+	prctl_set_same,
 	prctl_set,
 	prctl_set_no_child,
 	prctl_set_for_child,
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH v1 3/4] selftests: arm64: Fix and enable test for setting current VL in vec-syscfg

[Mark Brown]

We had some test code for verifying that we can write the current VL via
the prctl() interface but the condition for the test was inverted which
wasn't noticed as it was never actually hooked up to the array of tests
we execute. Fix this.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index d48d3ee1bc36..9d6ac843e651 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -329,12 +329,9 @@ static void prctl_set_same(struct vec_data *data)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (cur_vl != data->rdvl())
-		ksft_test_result_pass("%s current VL is %d\n",
-				      data->name, ret);
-	else
-		ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() VL %d but RDVL is %d\n",
-				      data->name, ret, data->rdvl());
+	ksft_test_result(cur_vl == data->rdvl(),
+			 "%s set VL %d and have VL %d\n",
+			 data->name, cur_vl, data->rdvl());
 }
 
 /* Can we set a new VL for this process? */
@@ -555,6 +552,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
 	proc_write_max,
 
 	prctl_get,
+	prctl_set_same,
 	prctl_set,
 	prctl_set_no_child,
 	prctl_set_for_child,
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v1 4/4] selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

[Mark Brown]

As part of the enumeration interface for setting vector lengths it is valid
to set vector lengths not supported in the system, these will be rounded to
a supported vector length and returned from the prctl(). Add a test which
exercises this for every valid vector length and makes sure that the return
value is as expected and that this is reflected in the actual system state.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index 9d6ac843e651..61e9704e03fe 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -540,6 +540,81 @@ static void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data)
 	file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl);
 }
 
+/* For each VQ verify that setting via prctl() does the right thing */
+static void prctl_set_all_vqs(struct vec_data *data)
+{
+	int ret, vq, vl, new_vl;
+	int errors = 0;
+
+	for (vq = SVE_VQ_MIN; vq <= SVE_VQ_MAX; vq++) {
+		vl = sve_vl_from_vq(vq);
+
+		/* Attempt to set the VL */
+		ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, vl);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			errors++;
+			ksft_print_msg("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n",
+				       data->name, vl,
+				       errno, strerror(errno));
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		new_vl = ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK;
+
+		/* Check that we actually have the reported new VL */
+		if (data->rdvl() != new_vl) {
+			ksft_print_msg("Set %s VL %d but RDVL reports %d\n",
+				       data->name, new_vl, data->rdvl());
+			errors++;
+		}
+
+		/* Was that the VL we asked for? */
+		if (new_vl == vl)
+			continue;
+
+		/* Should round up to the minimum VL if below it */
+		if (vl < data->min_vl) {
+			if (new_vl != data->min_vl) {
+				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not minimum %d\n",
+					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
+					       data->min_vl);
+				errors++;
+			}
+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* Should round down to maximum VL if above it */
+		if (vl > data->max_vl) {
+			if (new_vl != data->max_vl) {
+				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not maximum %d\n",
+					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
+					       data->max_vl);
+				errors++;
+			}
+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* Otherwise we should've rounded down */
+		if (!(new_vl < vl)) {
+			ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d, did not round down\n",
+				       data->name, vl, new_vl);
+			errors++;
+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* We should've hit one of the other cases... */
+		ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d test logic failure\n",
+			       data->name, vl, new_vl);
+		errors++;
+	}
+
+	ksft_test_result(errors == 0, "%s prctl() set all VLs, %d errors\n",
+			 data->name, errors);
+}
+
 typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *);
 
 static const test_type tests[] = {
@@ -557,6 +632,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
 	prctl_set_no_child,
 	prctl_set_for_child,
 	prctl_set_onexec,
+	prctl_set_all_vqs,
 };
 
 int main(void)
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH v1 4/4] selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

[Mark Brown]

As part of the enumeration interface for setting vector lengths it is valid
to set vector lengths not supported in the system, these will be rounded to
a supported vector length and returned from the prctl(). Add a test which
exercises this for every valid vector length and makes sure that the return
value is as expected and that this is reflected in the actual system state.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
index 9d6ac843e651..61e9704e03fe 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
@@ -540,6 +540,81 @@ static void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data)
 	file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl);
 }
 
+/* For each VQ verify that setting via prctl() does the right thing */
+static void prctl_set_all_vqs(struct vec_data *data)
+{
+	int ret, vq, vl, new_vl;
+	int errors = 0;
+
+	for (vq = SVE_VQ_MIN; vq <= SVE_VQ_MAX; vq++) {
+		vl = sve_vl_from_vq(vq);
+
+		/* Attempt to set the VL */
+		ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, vl);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			errors++;
+			ksft_print_msg("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n",
+				       data->name, vl,
+				       errno, strerror(errno));
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		new_vl = ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK;
+
+		/* Check that we actually have the reported new VL */
+		if (data->rdvl() != new_vl) {
+			ksft_print_msg("Set %s VL %d but RDVL reports %d\n",
+				       data->name, new_vl, data->rdvl());
+			errors++;
+		}
+
+		/* Was that the VL we asked for? */
+		if (new_vl == vl)
+			continue;
+
+		/* Should round up to the minimum VL if below it */
+		if (vl < data->min_vl) {
+			if (new_vl != data->min_vl) {
+				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not minimum %d\n",
+					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
+					       data->min_vl);
+				errors++;
+			}
+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* Should round down to maximum VL if above it */
+		if (vl > data->max_vl) {
+			if (new_vl != data->max_vl) {
+				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not maximum %d\n",
+					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
+					       data->max_vl);
+				errors++;
+			}
+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* Otherwise we should've rounded down */
+		if (!(new_vl < vl)) {
+			ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d, did not round down\n",
+				       data->name, vl, new_vl);
+			errors++;
+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* We should've hit one of the other cases... */
+		ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d test logic failure\n",
+			       data->name, vl, new_vl);
+		errors++;
+	}
+
+	ksft_test_result(errors == 0, "%s prctl() set all VLs, %d errors\n",
+			 data->name, errors);
+}
+
 typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *);
 
 static const test_type tests[] = {
@@ -557,6 +632,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
 	prctl_set_no_child,
 	prctl_set_for_child,
 	prctl_set_onexec,
+	prctl_set_all_vqs,
 };
 
 int main(void)
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RE: [PATCH v1 4/4] selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

[misono.tomohiro]

> As part of the enumeration interface for setting vector lengths it is valid
> to set vector lengths not supported in the system, these will be rounded to
> a supported vector length and returned from the prctl(). Add a test which
> exercises this for every valid vector length and makes sure that the return
> value is as expected and that this is reflected in the actual system state.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 76
> +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> index 9d6ac843e651..61e9704e03fe 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,81 @@ static void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data)
>  	file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl);
>  }
> 
> +/* For each VQ verify that setting via prctl() does the right thing */
> +static void prctl_set_all_vqs(struct vec_data *data)
> +{
> +	int ret, vq, vl, new_vl;
> +	int errors = 0;
> +
> +	for (vq = SVE_VQ_MIN; vq <= SVE_VQ_MAX; vq++) {
> +		vl = sve_vl_from_vq(vq);
> +
> +		/* Attempt to set the VL */
> +		ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, vl);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			errors++;
> +			ksft_print_msg("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d
> (%s)\n",
> +				       data->name, vl,
> +				       errno, strerror(errno));
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		new_vl = ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK;
> +
> +		/* Check that we actually have the reported new VL */
> +		if (data->rdvl() != new_vl) {
> +			ksft_print_msg("Set %s VL %d but RDVL
> reports %d\n",
> +				       data->name, new_vl, data->rdvl());
> +			errors++;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Was that the VL we asked for? */
> +		if (new_vl == vl)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/* Should round up to the minimum VL if below it */
> +		if (vl < data->min_vl) {
> +			if (new_vl != data->min_vl) {
> +				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not
> minimum %d\n",
> +					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
> +					       data->min_vl);
> +				errors++;
> +			}
> +
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Should round down to maximum VL if above it */
> +		if (vl > data->max_vl) {
> +			if (new_vl != data->max_vl) {
> +				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not
> maximum %d\n",
> +					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
> +					       data->max_vl);
> +				errors++;
> +			}
> +
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +

Hello,

Since (new_vl < vl) is expected here:
> +		/* Otherwise we should've rounded down */
> +		if (!(new_vl < vl)) {
> +			ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d, did not round
> down\n",
> +				       data->name, vl, new_vl);
> +			errors++;
> +
> +			continue;
> +		}

I think following two lines should be removed:
> +
> +		/* We should've hit one of the other cases... */
> +		ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d test logic failure\n",
> +			       data->name, vl, new_vl);
> +		errors++;

Actually I tried to run these sve tests update on A64FX and got the above error:

  # # SVE VL 48 returned 32 test logic failure

but returning 32 is expected behavior as A64FX's supported VL lens are 16, 32, 64.

Thanks,
Misono

> +	}
> +
> +	ksft_test_result(errors == 0, "%s prctl() set all VLs, %d errors\n",
> +			 data->name, errors);
> +}
> +
>  typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *);
> 
>  static const test_type tests[] = {
> @@ -557,6 +632,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
>  	prctl_set_no_child,
>  	prctl_set_for_child,
>  	prctl_set_onexec,
> +	prctl_set_all_vqs,
>  };
> 
>  int main(void)
> --
> 2.20.1
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RE: [PATCH v1 4/4] selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

[misono.tomohiro]

> As part of the enumeration interface for setting vector lengths it is valid
> to set vector lengths not supported in the system, these will be rounded to
> a supported vector length and returned from the prctl(). Add a test which
> exercises this for every valid vector length and makes sure that the return
> value is as expected and that this is reflected in the actual system state.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 76
> +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> index 9d6ac843e651..61e9704e03fe 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,81 @@ static void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data)
>  	file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl);
>  }
> 
> +/* For each VQ verify that setting via prctl() does the right thing */
> +static void prctl_set_all_vqs(struct vec_data *data)
> +{
> +	int ret, vq, vl, new_vl;
> +	int errors = 0;
> +
> +	for (vq = SVE_VQ_MIN; vq <= SVE_VQ_MAX; vq++) {
> +		vl = sve_vl_from_vq(vq);
> +
> +		/* Attempt to set the VL */
> +		ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, vl);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			errors++;
> +			ksft_print_msg("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d
> (%s)\n",
> +				       data->name, vl,
> +				       errno, strerror(errno));
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		new_vl = ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK;
> +
> +		/* Check that we actually have the reported new VL */
> +		if (data->rdvl() != new_vl) {
> +			ksft_print_msg("Set %s VL %d but RDVL
> reports %d\n",
> +				       data->name, new_vl, data->rdvl());
> +			errors++;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Was that the VL we asked for? */
> +		if (new_vl == vl)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/* Should round up to the minimum VL if below it */
> +		if (vl < data->min_vl) {
> +			if (new_vl != data->min_vl) {
> +				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not
> minimum %d\n",
> +					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
> +					       data->min_vl);
> +				errors++;
> +			}
> +
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Should round down to maximum VL if above it */
> +		if (vl > data->max_vl) {
> +			if (new_vl != data->max_vl) {
> +				ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not
> maximum %d\n",
> +					       data->name, vl, new_vl,
> +					       data->max_vl);
> +				errors++;
> +			}
> +
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +

Hello,

Since (new_vl < vl) is expected here:
> +		/* Otherwise we should've rounded down */
> +		if (!(new_vl < vl)) {
> +			ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d, did not round
> down\n",
> +				       data->name, vl, new_vl);
> +			errors++;
> +
> +			continue;
> +		}

I think following two lines should be removed:
> +
> +		/* We should've hit one of the other cases... */
> +		ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d test logic failure\n",
> +			       data->name, vl, new_vl);
> +		errors++;

Actually I tried to run these sve tests update on A64FX and got the above error:

  # # SVE VL 48 returned 32 test logic failure

but returning 32 is expected behavior as A64FX's supported VL lens are 16, 32, 64.

Thanks,
Misono

> +	}
> +
> +	ksft_test_result(errors == 0, "%s prctl() set all VLs, %d errors\n",
> +			 data->name, errors);
> +}
> +
>  typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *);
> 
>  static const test_type tests[] = {
> @@ -557,6 +632,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
>  	prctl_set_no_child,
>  	prctl_set_for_child,
>  	prctl_set_onexec,
> +	prctl_set_all_vqs,
>  };
> 
>  int main(void)
> --
> 2.20.1
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 09:27:04AM +0000, misono.tomohiro@fujitsu.com wrote:

> Actually I tried to run these sve tests update on A64FX and got the above error:

>   # # SVE VL 48 returned 32 test logic failure

> but returning 32 is expected behavior as A64FX's supported VL lens are 16, 32, 64.

Right, I see.  That's not triggering on the virtual platforms since they
just support all the VLs.  Your fix looks right, it was supposed to be
an assert in case of logic failures but that doesn't actually work out.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] selftests: arm64: Verify that all possible vector lengths are handled

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 09:27:04AM +0000, misono.tomohiro@fujitsu.com wrote:

> Actually I tried to run these sve tests update on A64FX and got the above error:

>   # # SVE VL 48 returned 32 test logic failure

> but returning 32 is expected behavior as A64FX's supported VL lens are 16, 32, 64.

Right, I see.  That's not triggering on the virtual platforms since they
just support all the VLs.  Your fix looks right, it was supposed to be
an assert in case of logic failures but that doesn't actually work out.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel