On 1/30/20 11:55 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 15:03:12 -0500 > Janosch Frank wrote: > >> From: Pierre Morel >> >> Local IRQs are reset by a normal cpu reset. The initial cpu reset and >> the clear cpu reset, as superset of the normal reset, both clear the >> IRQs too. >> >> Let's inject an interrupt to a vCPU before calling a reset and see if >> it is gone after the reset. >> >> We choose to inject only an emergency interrupt at this point and can >> extend the test to other types of IRQs later. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel > > You probably should add your s-o-b here as well. > >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c >> index 2b2378cc9e80..299c1686f98c 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c >> @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ >> #include "kvm_util.h" >> >> #define VCPU_ID 3 >> +#define LOCAL_IRQS 32 > > Why 32? > >> + >> +struct kvm_s390_irq buf[VCPU_ID + LOCAL_IRQS]; >> >> struct kvm_vm *vm; >> struct kvm_run *run; >> @@ -52,6 +55,29 @@ static void test_one_reg(uint64_t id, uint64_t value) >> TEST_ASSERT(eval_reg == value, "value == %s", value); >> } >> >> +static void assert_noirq(void) >> +{ >> + struct kvm_s390_irq_state irq_state; >> + int irqs; >> + >> + if (!(kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_INJECT_IRQ) && >> + kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_IRQ_STATE))) >> + return; > > Might want to do a > > irq_introspection_supported = (check stuff); > > once for this test? Works fine as is, of course. > >> + >> + irq_state.len = sizeof(buf); >> + irq_state.buf = (unsigned long)buf; >> + irqs = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_GET_IRQ_STATE, &irq_state); >> + /* >> + * irqs contains the number of retrieved interrupts, apart from the >> + * emergency call that should be cleared by the resets, there should be >> + * none. > > Even if there were any, they should have been cleared by the reset, > right? Yes, that's what "there should be none" should actually express. I added the comment before sending out. > >> + */ >> + if (irqs < 0) >> + printf("Error by getting IRQ: errno %d\n", errno); > > "Error getting pending IRQs" ? "Could not fetch IRQs: errno %d\n" ? > >> + >> + TEST_ASSERT(!irqs, "IRQ pending"); >> +} >> + >> static void assert_clear(void) >> { >> struct kvm_sregs sregs; >> @@ -93,6 +119,31 @@ static void assert_initial(void) >> static void assert_normal(void) >> { >> test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_PFTOKEN, KVM_S390_PFAULT_TOKEN_INVALID); >> + assert_noirq(); >> +} >> + >> +static int inject_irq(int cpu_id) > > You never seem to check the return code. > >> +{ >> + struct kvm_s390_irq_state irq_state; >> + struct kvm_s390_irq *irq = &buf[0]; >> + int irqs; >> + >> + if (!(kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_INJECT_IRQ) && >> + kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_IRQ_STATE))) >> + return 0; >> + >> + /* Inject IRQ */ >> + irq_state.len = sizeof(struct kvm_s390_irq); >> + irq_state.buf = (unsigned long)buf; >> + irq->type = KVM_S390_INT_EMERGENCY; >> + irq->u.emerg.code = cpu_id; >> + irqs = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, cpu_id, KVM_S390_SET_IRQ_STATE, &irq_state); >> + if (irqs < 0) { >> + printf("Error by injecting INT_EMERGENCY: errno %d\n", errno); > > "Error injecting EMERGENCY IRQ" ? Sounds good > >> + return errno; >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> } >> >> static void test_normal(void) >> @@ -105,6 +156,8 @@ static void test_normal(void) >> >> _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); >> >> + inject_irq(VCPU_ID); >> + >> vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET, 0); >> assert_normal(); >> kvm_vm_free(vm); >> @@ -122,6 +175,8 @@ static int test_initial(void) >> >> rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); >> >> + inject_irq(VCPU_ID); >> + >> vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET, 0); >> assert_normal(); >> assert_initial(); >> @@ -141,6 +196,8 @@ static int test_clear(void) >> >> rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); >> >> + inject_irq(VCPU_ID); >> + >> vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET, 0); >> assert_normal(); >> assert_initial(); > > On the whole, looks good to me. >