[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/6] arm64: add IPI/LPI/vtimer latency

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/6] arm64: add IPI/LPI/vtimer latency

[Jingyi Wang]

With the development of arm gic architecture, we think it will be useful
to add some performance test in kut to measure the cost of interrupts.
In this series, we add GICv4.1 support for ipi latency test and
implement LPI/vtimer latency test.

Jingyi Wang (6):
  arm64: microbench: get correct ipi recieved num
  arm64: microbench: Use the funcions for ipi test as the general
    functions for gic(ipi/lpi/timer) test.
  arm64: microbench: gic: Add gicv4.1 support for ipi latency test.
  arm64: its: Handle its command queue wrapping
  arm64: microbench: its: Add LPI latency test.
  arm64: microbench: Add vtimer latency test

 arm/micro-bench.c          | 215 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 lib/arm/asm/gic-v3.h       |   5 +
 lib/arm/asm/gic.h          |   1 +
 lib/arm64/gic-v3-its-cmd.c |   3 +-
 4 files changed, 192 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/6] arm64: microbench: get correct ipi recieved num

[Jingyi Wang]

If ipi_exec() fails because of timeout, we shouldn't increase
the number of ipi received.

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
---
 arm/micro-bench.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
index 4612f41..ca022d9 100644
--- a/arm/micro-bench.c
+++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
@@ -103,7 +103,9 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
 	while (!ipi_received && tries--)
 		cpu_relax();
 
-	++received;
+	if (ipi_recieved)
+		++received;
+
 	assert_msg(ipi_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
 }
 
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/6] arm64: microbench: get correct ipi recieved num

[Zenghui Yu]

On 2020/5/17 18:08, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> If ipi_exec() fails because of timeout, we shouldn't increase
> the number of ipi received.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
> ---
>   arm/micro-bench.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
> index 4612f41..ca022d9 100644
> --- a/arm/micro-bench.c
> +++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
> @@ -103,7 +103,9 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
>   	while (!ipi_received && tries--)
>   		cpu_relax();
>   
> -	++received;
> +	if (ipi_recieved)

I think you may want *ipi_received* ;-) Otherwise it can not even
compile!

> +		++received;
> +
>   	assert_msg(ipi_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
>   }

With this fixed, this looks good to me,

Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>


Thanks.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/6] arm64: microbench: get correct ipi recieved num

[Jingyi Wang]

On 5/21/2020 10:00 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> On 2020/5/17 18:08, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>> If ipi_exec() fails because of timeout, we shouldn't increase
>> the number of ipi received.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   arm/micro-bench.c | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
>> index 4612f41..ca022d9 100644
>> --- a/arm/micro-bench.c
>> +++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
>> @@ -103,7 +103,9 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
>>       while (!ipi_received && tries--)
>>           cpu_relax();
>> -    ++received;
>> +    if (ipi_recieved)
> 
> I think you may want *ipi_received* ;-) Otherwise it can not even
> compile!
> 
>> +        ++received;
>> +
>>       assert_msg(ipi_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but 
>> received %d successfully\n", received);
>>   }
> 
> With this fixed, this looks good to me,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
This variable name is modified in the next patch, so I ignored that
mistake, thanks.

Thanks,
Jingyi

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/6] arm64: microbench: get correct ipi recieved num

[Andrew Jones]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:32:25AM +0800, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> 
> On 5/21/2020 10:00 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> > On 2020/5/17 18:08, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> > > If ipi_exec() fails because of timeout, we shouldn't increase
> > > the number of ipi received.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arm/micro-bench.c | 4 +++-
> > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
> > > index 4612f41..ca022d9 100644
> > > --- a/arm/micro-bench.c
> > > +++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
> > > @@ -103,7 +103,9 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
> > >       while (!ipi_received && tries--)
> > >           cpu_relax();
> > > -    ++received;
> > > +    if (ipi_recieved)
> > 
> > I think you may want *ipi_received* ;-) Otherwise it can not even
> > compile!
> > 
> > > +        ++received;
> > > +
> > >       assert_msg(ipi_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but
> > > received %d successfully\n", received);
> > >   }
> > 
> > With this fixed, this looks good to me,
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > .
> This variable name is modified in the next patch, so I ignored that
> mistake, thanks.
>

kvm-unit-tests build and run fast enough that you can do something like

  git rebase -i -x 'make clean && make && arm/run arm/micro-bench'

to test your series before posting.

Thanks,
drew

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/6] arm64: microbench: Use the funcions for ipi test as the general functions for gic(ipi/lpi/timer) test.

[Jingyi Wang]

The following patches will use that.

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
---
 arm/micro-bench.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
index ca022d9..fc4d356 100644
--- a/arm/micro-bench.c
+++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
@@ -25,24 +25,24 @@
 
 static u32 cntfrq;
 
-static volatile bool ipi_ready, ipi_received;
+static volatile bool irq_ready, irq_received;
 static void *vgic_dist_base;
 static void (*write_eoir)(u32 irqstat);
 
-static void ipi_irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
+static void gic_irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	ipi_ready = false;
-	ipi_received = true;
+	irq_ready = false;
+	irq_received = true;
 	gic_write_eoir(gic_read_iar());
-	ipi_ready = true;
+	irq_ready = true;
 }
 
-static void ipi_secondary_entry(void *data)
+static void gic_secondary_entry(void *data)
 {
-	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, ipi_irq_handler);
+	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, gic_irq_handler);
 	gic_enable_defaults();
 	local_irq_enable();
-	ipi_ready = true;
+	irq_ready = true;
 	while (true)
 		cpu_relax();
 }
@@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ static bool test_init(void)
 		break;
 	}
 
-	ipi_ready = false;
+	irq_ready = false;
 	gic_enable_defaults();
-	on_cpu_async(1, ipi_secondary_entry, NULL);
+	on_cpu_async(1, gic_secondary_entry, NULL);
 
 	cntfrq = get_cntfrq();
 	printf("Timer Frequency %d Hz (Output in microseconds)\n", cntfrq);
@@ -82,13 +82,18 @@ static bool test_init(void)
 	return true;
 }
 
-static void ipi_prep(void)
+static void gic_prep_common(void)
 {
 	unsigned tries = 1 << 28;
 
-	while (!ipi_ready && tries--)
+	while (!irq_ready && tries--)
 		cpu_relax();
-	assert(ipi_ready);
+	assert(irq_ready);
+}
+
+static void ipi_prep(void)
+{
+	gic_prep_common();
 }
 
 static void ipi_exec(void)
@@ -96,17 +101,17 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
 	unsigned tries = 1 << 28;
 	static int received = 0;
 
-	ipi_received = false;
+	irq_received = false;
 
 	gic_ipi_send_single(1, 1);
 
-	while (!ipi_received && tries--)
+	while (!irq_received && tries--)
 		cpu_relax();
 
-	if (ipi_recieved)
+	if (irq_received)
 		++received;
 
-	assert_msg(ipi_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
+	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
 }
 
 static void hvc_exec(void)
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/6] arm64: microbench: gic: Add gicv4.1 support for ipi latency test.

[Jingyi Wang]

If gicv4.1(sgi hardware injection) supported, we test ipi injection
via hw/sw way separately.

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
---
 arm/micro-bench.c    | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 lib/arm/asm/gic-v3.h |  5 +++++
 lib/arm/asm/gic.h    |  1 +
 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
index fc4d356..0c7869b 100644
--- a/arm/micro-bench.c
+++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ static u32 cntfrq;
 static volatile bool irq_ready, irq_received;
 static void *vgic_dist_base;
 static void (*write_eoir)(u32 irqstat);
+static bool ipi_hw;
 
 static void gic_irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
@@ -91,9 +92,42 @@ static void gic_prep_common(void)
 	assert(irq_ready);
 }
 
-static void ipi_prep(void)
+static bool ipi_prep(void)
 {
+	u32 val;
+
+	val = readl(vgic_dist_base + GICD_CTLR);
+	if (readl(vgic_dist_base + GICD_TYPER2) & GICD_TYPER2_nASSGIcap) {
+		val &= ~GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A;
+		val &= ~GICD_CTLR_nASSGIreq;
+		writel(val, vgic_dist_base + GICD_CTLR);
+		val |= GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A;
+		writel(val, vgic_dist_base + GICD_CTLR);
+	}
+
+	ipi_hw = false;
 	gic_prep_common();
+	return true;
+}
+
+static bool ipi_hw_prep(void)
+{
+	u32 val;
+
+	val = readl(vgic_dist_base + GICD_CTLR);
+	if (readl(vgic_dist_base + GICD_TYPER2) & GICD_TYPER2_nASSGIcap) {
+		val &= ~GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A;
+		val |= GICD_CTLR_nASSGIreq;
+		writel(val, vgic_dist_base + GICD_CTLR);
+		val |= GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A;
+		writel(val, vgic_dist_base + GICD_CTLR);
+	} else {
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	ipi_hw = true;
+	gic_prep_common();
+	return true;
 }
 
 static void ipi_exec(void)
@@ -103,7 +137,11 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
 
 	irq_received = false;
 
-	gic_ipi_send_single(1, 1);
+	if (ipi_hw) {
+		writel(1 << 1, gicv3_sgi_base_percpu(1) + GICR_ISPENDR0);
+	} else {
+		gic_ipi_send_single(1, 1);
+	}
 
 	while (!irq_received && tries--)
 		cpu_relax();
@@ -147,7 +185,7 @@ static void eoi_exec(void)
 
 struct exit_test {
 	const char *name;
-	void (*prep)(void);
+	bool (*prep)(void);
 	void (*exec)(void);
 	bool run;
 };
@@ -158,6 +196,7 @@ static struct exit_test tests[] = {
 	{"mmio_read_vgic",	NULL,		mmio_read_vgic_exec,	true},
 	{"eoi",			NULL,		eoi_exec,		true},
 	{"ipi",			ipi_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
+	{"ipi_hw",		ipi_hw_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
 };
 
 struct ns_time {
@@ -181,9 +220,13 @@ static void loop_test(struct exit_test *test)
 	uint64_t start, end, total_ticks, ntimes = NTIMES;
 	struct ns_time total_ns, avg_ns;
 
-	if (test->prep)
-		test->prep();
+	if (test->prep) {
+		if(!test->prep()) {
 
+			printf("%s test skipped\n", test->name);
+			return;
+		}
+	}
 	isb();
 	start = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
 	while (ntimes--)
diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3.h b/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3.h
index cb72922..cbf51ba 100644
--- a/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3.h
+++ b/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3.h
@@ -20,10 +20,13 @@
  */
 #define GICD_CTLR			0x0000
 #define GICD_CTLR_RWP			(1U << 31)
+#define GICD_CTLR_nASSGIreq		(1U << 8)
 #define GICD_CTLR_ARE_NS		(1U << 4)
 #define GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A		(1U << 1)
 #define GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1		(1U << 0)
 
+#define GICD_TYPER2_nASSGIcap		(1U << 8)
+
 /* Re-Distributor registers, offsets from RD_base */
 #define GICR_TYPER			0x0008
 
@@ -87,6 +90,8 @@ extern struct gicv3_data gicv3_data;
 #define gicv3_redist_base()		(gicv3_data.redist_base[smp_processor_id()])
 #define gicv3_sgi_base()		(gicv3_data.redist_base[smp_processor_id()] + SZ_64K)
 
+#define gicv3_sgi_base_percpu(cpu)	(gicv3_data.redist_base[cpu] + SZ_64K)
+
 extern int gicv3_init(void);
 extern void gicv3_enable_defaults(void);
 extern u32 gicv3_read_iar(void);
diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/gic.h b/lib/arm/asm/gic.h
index 38e79b2..1898400 100644
--- a/lib/arm/asm/gic.h
+++ b/lib/arm/asm/gic.h
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
 #define GICD_CTLR			0x0000
 #define GICD_TYPER			0x0004
 #define GICD_IIDR			0x0008
+#define GICD_TYPER2			0x000C
 #define GICD_IGROUPR			0x0080
 #define GICD_ISENABLER			0x0100
 #define GICD_ICENABLER			0x0180
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 4/6] arm64: its: Handle its command queue wrapping

[Jingyi Wang]

Because micro-bench may send a large number of ITS commands, we
should handle ITS command queue wrapping as kernel instead of just
failing the test.

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
---
 lib/arm64/gic-v3-its-cmd.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/arm64/gic-v3-its-cmd.c b/lib/arm64/gic-v3-its-cmd.c
index 2c208d1..34574f7 100644
--- a/lib/arm64/gic-v3-its-cmd.c
+++ b/lib/arm64/gic-v3-its-cmd.c
@@ -164,8 +164,9 @@ static struct its_cmd_block *its_allocate_entry(void)
 {
 	struct its_cmd_block *cmd;
 
-	assert((u64)its_data.cmd_write < (u64)its_data.cmd_base + SZ_64K);
 	cmd = its_data.cmd_write++;
+	if ((u64)its_data.cmd_write  == (u64)its_data.cmd_base + SZ_64K)
+		its_data.cmd_write = its_data.cmd_base;
 	return cmd;
 }
 
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 5/6] arm64: microbench: its: Add LPI latency test.

[Jingyi Wang]

Triggers LPIs through the INT command and test the latency.
Mostly inherited form commit 0ef02cd6cbaa(arm/arm64: ITS: INT
functional tests).

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
---
 arm/micro-bench.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
index 0c7869b..91af1f7 100644
--- a/arm/micro-bench.c
+++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
  */
 #include <libcflat.h>
 #include <asm/gic.h>
+#include <asm/gic-v3-its.h>
 
 #define NTIMES (1U << 16)
 
@@ -152,6 +153,48 @@ static void ipi_exec(void)
 	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
 }
 
+static bool lpi_prep(void)
+{
+	struct its_collection *col1;
+	struct its_device *dev2;
+
+	if (!gicv3_its_base())
+		return false;
+
+	its_enable_defaults();
+	dev2 = its_create_device(2 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */);
+	col1 = its_create_collection(1 /* col id */, 1 /* target PE */);
+	gicv3_lpi_set_config(8199, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
+
+	its_send_mapd_nv(dev2, true);
+	its_send_mapc_nv(col1, true);
+	its_send_invall_nv(col1);
+	its_send_mapti_nv(dev2, 8199 /* lpi id */, 20 /* event id */, col1);
+
+	gic_prep_common();
+	return true;
+}
+
+static void lpi_exec(void)
+{
+	struct its_device *dev2;
+	unsigned tries = 1 << 28;
+	static int received = 0;
+
+	irq_received = false;
+
+	dev2 = its_get_device(2);
+	its_send_int_nv(dev2, 20);
+
+	while (!irq_received && tries--)
+		cpu_relax();
+
+	if (irq_received)
+		++received;
+
+	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive LPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
+}
+
 static void hvc_exec(void)
 {
 	asm volatile("mov w0, #0x4b000000; hvc #0" ::: "w0");
@@ -197,6 +240,7 @@ static struct exit_test tests[] = {
 	{"eoi",			NULL,		eoi_exec,		true},
 	{"ipi",			ipi_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
 	{"ipi_hw",		ipi_hw_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
+	{"lpi",			lpi_prep,	lpi_exec,		true},
 };
 
 struct ns_time {
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 6/6] arm64: microbench: Add vtimer latency test

[Jingyi Wang]

Triggers PPIs by setting up a 10msec timer and test the latency.
For this test can be time consuming, we add time limit for loop_test
to make sure each test should be done in a certain time(5 sec here).

Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
---
 arm/micro-bench.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
index 91af1f7..dbe8e54 100644
--- a/arm/micro-bench.c
+++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
@@ -23,6 +23,11 @@
 #include <asm/gic-v3-its.h>
 
 #define NTIMES (1U << 16)
+#define MAX_NS (5 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000UL)
+
+#define IRQ_VTIMER		27
+#define ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE	(1 << 0)
+#define ARCH_TIMER_CTL_IMASK	(1 << 1)
 
 static u32 cntfrq;
 
@@ -33,9 +38,16 @@ static bool ipi_hw;
 
 static void gic_irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
+	u32 irqstat = gic_read_iar();
 	irq_ready = false;
 	irq_received = true;
-	gic_write_eoir(gic_read_iar());
+	gic_write_eoir(irqstat);
+
+	if (irqstat == IRQ_VTIMER) {
+		write_sysreg((ARCH_TIMER_CTL_IMASK | ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE),
+				cntv_ctl_el0);
+		isb();
+	}
 	irq_ready = true;
 }
 
@@ -195,6 +207,47 @@ static void lpi_exec(void)
 	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive LPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
 }
 
+static bool timer_prep(void)
+{
+	static void *gic_isenabler;
+
+	gic_enable_defaults();
+	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, gic_irq_handler);
+	local_irq_enable();
+
+	gic_isenabler = gicv3_sgi_base() + GICR_ISENABLER0;
+	writel(1 << IRQ_VTIMER, gic_isenabler);
+	write_sysreg(ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE, cntv_ctl_el0);
+	isb();
+
+	gic_prep_common();
+	return true;
+}
+
+static void timer_exec(void)
+{
+	u64 before_timer;
+	u64 timer_10ms;
+	unsigned tries = 1 << 28;
+	static int received = 0;
+
+	irq_received = false;
+
+	before_timer = read_sysreg(cntvct_el0);
+	timer_10ms = cntfrq / 100;
+	write_sysreg(before_timer + timer_10ms, cntv_cval_el0);
+	write_sysreg(ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE, cntv_ctl_el0);
+	isb();
+
+	while (!irq_received && tries--)
+		cpu_relax();
+
+	if (irq_received)
+		++received;
+
+	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive PPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
+}
+
 static void hvc_exec(void)
 {
 	asm volatile("mov w0, #0x4b000000; hvc #0" ::: "w0");
@@ -241,6 +294,7 @@ static struct exit_test tests[] = {
 	{"ipi",			ipi_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
 	{"ipi_hw",		ipi_hw_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
 	{"lpi",			lpi_prep,	lpi_exec,		true},
+	{"timer_10ms",		timer_prep,	timer_exec,		true},
 };
 
 struct ns_time {
@@ -261,27 +315,32 @@ static void ticks_to_ns_time(uint64_t ticks, struct ns_time *ns_time)
 
 static void loop_test(struct exit_test *test)
 {
-	uint64_t start, end, total_ticks, ntimes = NTIMES;
+	uint64_t start, end, total_ticks, ntimes = 0;
 	struct ns_time total_ns, avg_ns;
 
+	total_ticks = 0;
 	if (test->prep) {
 		if(!test->prep()) {
-
 			printf("%s test skipped\n", test->name);
 			return;
 		}
 	}
-	isb();
-	start = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
-	while (ntimes--)
+
+	while (ntimes < NTIMES && total_ns.ns < MAX_NS) {
+		isb();
+		start = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
 		test->exec();
-	isb();
-	end = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
+		isb();
+		end = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
+
+		ntimes++;
+		total_ticks += (end - start);
+		ticks_to_ns_time(total_ticks, &total_ns);
+	}
 
-	total_ticks = end - start;
 	ticks_to_ns_time(total_ticks, &total_ns);
-	avg_ns.ns = total_ns.ns / NTIMES;
-	avg_ns.ns_frac = total_ns.ns_frac / NTIMES;
+	avg_ns.ns = total_ns.ns / ntimes;
+	avg_ns.ns_frac = total_ns.ns_frac / ntimes;
 
 	printf("%-30s%15" PRId64 ".%-15" PRId64 "%15" PRId64 ".%-15" PRId64 "\n",
 		test->name, total_ns.ns, total_ns.ns_frac, avg_ns.ns, avg_ns.ns_frac);
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 6/6] arm64: microbench: Add vtimer latency test

[Andrew Jones]

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 06:09:00PM +0800, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> Triggers PPIs by setting up a 10msec timer and test the latency.
> For this test can be time consuming, we add time limit for loop_test
> to make sure each test should be done in a certain time(5 sec here).

Having a time limit for the micro-bench tests might be a good idea, as
the overall unit test timeout configured by unittests.cfg can't measure
each individual micro-bench test separately, but it seems what we're
really doing here is saying that we can't do 65536 10ms long vtimer-ppi
tests, so let's do 500 instead -- however by using time to dictate the
count.

I think I'd rather see NTIMES be changed to a micro-bench test parameter
that defaults to 65536, but for the vtimer-ppi test it can be set to
something much smaller.

Also, please create a separate patch for the loop_test()/ntimes changes.
If you'd still like to do a per micro-bench test timeout as well, then
please create a separate patch for that too.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@huawei.com>
> ---
>  arm/micro-bench.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c
> index 91af1f7..dbe8e54 100644
> --- a/arm/micro-bench.c
> +++ b/arm/micro-bench.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,11 @@
>  #include <asm/gic-v3-its.h>
>  
>  #define NTIMES (1U << 16)
> +#define MAX_NS (5 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000UL)
> +
> +#define IRQ_VTIMER		27
> +#define ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE	(1 << 0)
> +#define ARCH_TIMER_CTL_IMASK	(1 << 1)
>  
>  static u32 cntfrq;
>  
> @@ -33,9 +38,16 @@ static bool ipi_hw;
>  
>  static void gic_irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
> +	u32 irqstat = gic_read_iar();
>  	irq_ready = false;
>  	irq_received = true;
> -	gic_write_eoir(gic_read_iar());
> +	gic_write_eoir(irqstat);
> +
> +	if (irqstat == IRQ_VTIMER) {
> +		write_sysreg((ARCH_TIMER_CTL_IMASK | ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE),
> +				cntv_ctl_el0);
> +		isb();
> +	}
>  	irq_ready = true;
>  }
>  
> @@ -195,6 +207,47 @@ static void lpi_exec(void)
>  	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive LPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
>  }
>  
> +static bool timer_prep(void)
> +{
> +	static void *gic_isenabler;
> +
> +	gic_enable_defaults();
> +	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, gic_irq_handler);
> +	local_irq_enable();
> +
> +	gic_isenabler = gicv3_sgi_base() + GICR_ISENABLER0;
> +	writel(1 << IRQ_VTIMER, gic_isenabler);
> +	write_sysreg(ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE, cntv_ctl_el0);
> +	isb();
> +
> +	gic_prep_common();
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +static void timer_exec(void)
> +{
> +	u64 before_timer;
> +	u64 timer_10ms;
> +	unsigned tries = 1 << 28;
> +	static int received = 0;
> +
> +	irq_received = false;
> +
> +	before_timer = read_sysreg(cntvct_el0);
> +	timer_10ms = cntfrq / 100;
> +	write_sysreg(before_timer + timer_10ms, cntv_cval_el0);
> +	write_sysreg(ARCH_TIMER_CTL_ENABLE, cntv_ctl_el0);
> +	isb();
> +
> +	while (!irq_received && tries--)
> +		cpu_relax();
> +
> +	if (irq_received)
> +		++received;
> +
> +	assert_msg(irq_received, "failed to receive PPI in time, but received %d successfully\n", received);
> +}
> +
>  static void hvc_exec(void)
>  {
>  	asm volatile("mov w0, #0x4b000000; hvc #0" ::: "w0");
> @@ -241,6 +294,7 @@ static struct exit_test tests[] = {
>  	{"ipi",			ipi_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
>  	{"ipi_hw",		ipi_hw_prep,	ipi_exec,		true},
>  	{"lpi",			lpi_prep,	lpi_exec,		true},
> +	{"timer_10ms",		timer_prep,	timer_exec,		true},
>  };
>  
>  struct ns_time {
> @@ -261,27 +315,32 @@ static void ticks_to_ns_time(uint64_t ticks, struct ns_time *ns_time)
>  
>  static void loop_test(struct exit_test *test)
>  {
> -	uint64_t start, end, total_ticks, ntimes = NTIMES;
> +	uint64_t start, end, total_ticks, ntimes = 0;
>  	struct ns_time total_ns, avg_ns;
>  
> +	total_ticks = 0;
>  	if (test->prep) {
>  		if(!test->prep()) {
> -
>  			printf("%s test skipped\n", test->name);
>  			return;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	isb();
> -	start = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
> -	while (ntimes--)
> +
> +	while (ntimes < NTIMES && total_ns.ns < MAX_NS) {
> +		isb();
> +		start = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
>  		test->exec();
> -	isb();
> -	end = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
> +		isb();
> +		end = read_sysreg(cntpct_el0);
> +
> +		ntimes++;
> +		total_ticks += (end - start);
> +		ticks_to_ns_time(total_ticks, &total_ns);
> +	}
>  
> -	total_ticks = end - start;
>  	ticks_to_ns_time(total_ticks, &total_ns);
> -	avg_ns.ns = total_ns.ns / NTIMES;
> -	avg_ns.ns_frac = total_ns.ns_frac / NTIMES;
> +	avg_ns.ns = total_ns.ns / ntimes;
> +	avg_ns.ns_frac = total_ns.ns_frac / ntimes;
>  
>  	printf("%-30s%15" PRId64 ".%-15" PRId64 "%15" PRId64 ".%-15" PRId64 "\n",
>  		test->name, total_ns.ns, total_ns.ns_frac, avg_ns.ns, avg_ns.ns_frac);
> -- 
> 2.19.1
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 6/6] arm64: microbench: Add vtimer latency test

[Jingyi Wang]

Hi Drew,

On 5/18/2020 3:05 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 06:09:00PM +0800, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>> Triggers PPIs by setting up a 10msec timer and test the latency.
>> For this test can be time consuming, we add time limit for loop_test
>> to make sure each test should be done in a certain time(5 sec here).
> 
> Having a time limit for the micro-bench tests might be a good idea, as
> the overall unit test timeout configured by unittests.cfg can't measure
> each individual micro-bench test separately, but it seems what we're
> really doing here is saying that we can't do 65536 10ms long vtimer-ppi
> tests, so let's do 500 instead -- however by using time to dictate the
> count.
> 
> I think I'd rather see NTIMES be changed to a micro-bench test parameter
> that defaults to 65536, but for the vtimer-ppi test it can be set to
> something much smaller.
> 
> Also, please create a separate patch for the loop_test()/ntimes changes.
> If you'd still like to do a per micro-bench test timeout as well, then
> please create a separate patch for that too.
> 
> Thanks,
> drew
> 

Thanks for your review, I will update that in the next version.

Thanks,
Jingyi

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm