From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> To: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, andrew.jones@linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, alexandru.elisei@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com, reijiw@google.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 3/3] arm: pmu: Check for overflow in the low counter in chained counters tests Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:30:26 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YvPrMtKkrVc8HhOA@google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220805004139.990531-4-ricarkol@google.com> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:41:39PM -0700, Ricardo Koller wrote: > A chained event overflowing on the low counter can set the overflow flag > in PMOVS. KVM does not set it, but real HW and the fast-model seem to. > Moreover, the AArch64.IncrementEventCounter() pseudocode in the ARM ARM > (DDI 0487H.a, J1.1.1 "aarch64/debug") also sets the PMOVS bit on > overflow. > > The pmu chain tests fail on bare metal when checking the overflow flag > of the low counter _not_ being set on overflow. Fix by checking for > overflow. Note that this test fails in KVM without the respective fix. > It'd be good to link out to the respective KVM fix, either by commit or lore link if this patch lands before the kernel patches: Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20220805135813.2102034-1-maz@kernel.org -- Thanks, Oliver > Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com> > --- > arm/pmu.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c > index 12e7d84e..0a7e12f8 100644 > --- a/arm/pmu.c > +++ b/arm/pmu.c > @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > > report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1, "CHAIN counter #1 incremented"); > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), "no overflow recorded for chained incr #1"); > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #1"); > > /* test 64b overflow */ > > @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 2, "CHAIN counter #1 set to 2"); > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), "no overflow recorded for chained incr #2"); > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #2"); > > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW); > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET); > @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > report(!read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); > - report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2, "overflow on chain counter"); > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters"); > } > > static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > @@ -629,8 +629,9 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0); > > isb(); > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) && (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1), > - "no overflow and chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > + report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1) && > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1), > + "overflow and chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > report_info("overflow=0x%lx, #0=%ld #1=%ld", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > > @@ -648,10 +649,10 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0); > > isb(); > - report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2) && > + report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3) && > (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0) && > (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84), > - "overflow on chain counter and expected values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > + "expected overflows and values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > report_info("overflow=0x%lx, #0=%ld #1=%ld", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > } > @@ -731,8 +732,9 @@ static void test_chain_promotion(void) > report_info("MEM_ACCESS counter #0 has value 0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0)); > > - report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && !read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > - "CHAIN counter enabled: CHAIN counter was incremented and no overflow"); > + report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && > + (read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1), > + "CHAIN counter enabled: CHAIN counter was incremented and overflow"); > > report_info("CHAIN counter #1 = 0x%lx, overflow=0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > @@ -759,8 +761,9 @@ static void test_chain_promotion(void) > report_info("MEM_ACCESS counter #0 has value 0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0)); > > - report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && !read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > - "32b->64b: CHAIN counter incremented and no overflow"); > + report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && > + (read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1), > + "32b->64b: CHAIN counter incremented and overflow"); > > report_info("CHAIN counter #1 = 0x%lx, overflow=0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > @@ -868,8 +871,8 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(void) > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW); > isb(); > mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > - report(expect_interrupts(0), > - "no overflow interrupt expected on 32b boundary"); > + report(expect_interrupts(0x1), > + "expect overflow interrupt on 32b boundary"); > > /* overflow on odd counter */ > pmu_reset_stats(); > @@ -877,8 +880,8 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(void) > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET); > isb(); > mem_access_loop(addr, 400, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > - report(expect_interrupts(0x2), > - "expect overflow interrupt on odd counter"); > + report(expect_interrupts(0x3), > + "expect overflow interrupt on even and odd counter"); > } > #endif > > -- > 2.37.1.559.g78731f0fdb-goog >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> To: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, andrew.jones@linux.dev, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 3/3] arm: pmu: Check for overflow in the low counter in chained counters tests Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:30:26 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YvPrMtKkrVc8HhOA@google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220805004139.990531-4-ricarkol@google.com> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:41:39PM -0700, Ricardo Koller wrote: > A chained event overflowing on the low counter can set the overflow flag > in PMOVS. KVM does not set it, but real HW and the fast-model seem to. > Moreover, the AArch64.IncrementEventCounter() pseudocode in the ARM ARM > (DDI 0487H.a, J1.1.1 "aarch64/debug") also sets the PMOVS bit on > overflow. > > The pmu chain tests fail on bare metal when checking the overflow flag > of the low counter _not_ being set on overflow. Fix by checking for > overflow. Note that this test fails in KVM without the respective fix. > It'd be good to link out to the respective KVM fix, either by commit or lore link if this patch lands before the kernel patches: Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20220805135813.2102034-1-maz@kernel.org -- Thanks, Oliver > Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com> > --- > arm/pmu.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c > index 12e7d84e..0a7e12f8 100644 > --- a/arm/pmu.c > +++ b/arm/pmu.c > @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > > report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1, "CHAIN counter #1 incremented"); > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), "no overflow recorded for chained incr #1"); > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #1"); > > /* test 64b overflow */ > > @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 2, "CHAIN counter #1 set to 2"); > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), "no overflow recorded for chained incr #2"); > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #2"); > > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW); > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET); > @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > report(!read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); > - report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2, "overflow on chain counter"); > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters"); > } > > static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > @@ -629,8 +629,9 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0); > > isb(); > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) && (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1), > - "no overflow and chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > + report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1) && > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1), > + "overflow and chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > report_info("overflow=0x%lx, #0=%ld #1=%ld", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > > @@ -648,10 +649,10 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0); > > isb(); > - report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2) && > + report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3) && > (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0) && > (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84), > - "overflow on chain counter and expected values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > + "expected overflows and values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > report_info("overflow=0x%lx, #0=%ld #1=%ld", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > } > @@ -731,8 +732,9 @@ static void test_chain_promotion(void) > report_info("MEM_ACCESS counter #0 has value 0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0)); > > - report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && !read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > - "CHAIN counter enabled: CHAIN counter was incremented and no overflow"); > + report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && > + (read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1), > + "CHAIN counter enabled: CHAIN counter was incremented and overflow"); > > report_info("CHAIN counter #1 = 0x%lx, overflow=0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > @@ -759,8 +761,9 @@ static void test_chain_promotion(void) > report_info("MEM_ACCESS counter #0 has value 0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0)); > > - report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && !read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > - "32b->64b: CHAIN counter incremented and no overflow"); > + report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && > + (read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1), > + "32b->64b: CHAIN counter incremented and overflow"); > > report_info("CHAIN counter #1 = 0x%lx, overflow=0x%lx", > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > @@ -868,8 +871,8 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(void) > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW); > isb(); > mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > - report(expect_interrupts(0), > - "no overflow interrupt expected on 32b boundary"); > + report(expect_interrupts(0x1), > + "expect overflow interrupt on 32b boundary"); > > /* overflow on odd counter */ > pmu_reset_stats(); > @@ -877,8 +880,8 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(void) > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET); > isb(); > mem_access_loop(addr, 400, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > - report(expect_interrupts(0x2), > - "expect overflow interrupt on odd counter"); > + report(expect_interrupts(0x3), > + "expect overflow interrupt on even and odd counter"); > } > #endif > > -- > 2.37.1.559.g78731f0fdb-goog > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-10 17:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-08-05 0:41 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 0/3] arm: pmu: Fixes for bare metal Ricardo Koller 2022-08-05 0:41 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-05 0:41 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 1/3] arm: pmu: Add missing isb()'s after sys register writing Ricardo Koller 2022-08-05 0:41 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-09 15:21 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-08-09 15:21 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-08-05 0:41 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 2/3] arm: pmu: Reset the pmu registers before starting some tests Ricardo Koller 2022-08-05 0:41 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-10 19:02 ` Andrew Jones 2022-08-10 19:02 ` Andrew Jones 2022-08-10 23:33 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-10 23:33 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-11 7:04 ` Andrew Jones 2022-08-11 7:04 ` Andrew Jones 2022-08-11 18:51 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-11 18:51 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-05 0:41 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 3/3] arm: pmu: Check for overflow in the low counter in chained counters tests Ricardo Koller 2022-08-05 0:41 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-08-10 17:30 ` Oliver Upton [this message] 2022-08-10 17:30 ` Oliver Upton 2022-08-10 18:28 ` Andrew Jones 2022-08-10 18:28 ` Andrew Jones 2022-08-10 17:33 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 0/3] arm: pmu: Fixes for bare metal Oliver Upton 2022-08-10 17:33 ` Oliver Upton 2022-10-04 16:20 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-04 16:20 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-04 16:58 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-04 16:58 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-04 17:31 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-04 17:31 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-05 9:21 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-05 9:21 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-05 9:41 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-05 9:41 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-05 9:51 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-05 9:51 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-05 9:50 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-05 9:50 ` Eric Auger 2022-10-06 9:25 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-06 9:25 ` Alexandru Elisei 2022-10-11 3:50 ` Ricardo Koller 2022-10-11 3:50 ` Ricardo Koller
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=YvPrMtKkrVc8HhOA@google.com \ --to=oliver.upton@linux.dev \ --cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \ --cc=andrew.jones@linux.dev \ --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \ --cc=maz@kernel.org \ --cc=reijiw@google.com \ --cc=ricarkol@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.