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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECF0C10F25 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFF82084E for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Mz0gaNl6" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5FFF82084E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3DB4A65C; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:40:21 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@redhat.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ho9osQM4vw4J; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F06B4AC83; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99ED24AC7E for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:40:18 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Om4Z1uT96Mo for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:40:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272154AC70 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:40:17 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583502017; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MTN85EDGHhLSRrRisKA51huPDatllgHXkn8nG5dIrk8=; b=Mz0gaNl68ucYlUES7ySIeECdx96djYNEMeh2Dcq+uKo+YVn8l0BioJU91bV2RI8BgXmQiQ V+7/cUNHXDfBb+Rw1TYeuzNJx9/qaNDOjAkvx45iKWcVYByUf0qWy229cIrTwnX7SYUAqr RoSOxSYq8V6fwjG4fQWz2TUFzUxJjUM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-481-fdIQDuJVMWCtoADx9jmuyA-1; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:40:15 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fdIQDuJVMWCtoADx9jmuyA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21CB4107ACC7; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:40:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.116.59] (ovpn-116-59.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.59]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7635C545; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:40:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 11/14] arm/arm64: ITS: INT functional tests To: Andrew Jones References: <20200128103459.19413-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200128103459.19413-12-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200207131547.rlj44nwu32xa4tyd@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <5f5b7136-61e5-6464-f359-5925ceaa49a2@redhat.com> <20200306132957.ztjlr2g2ngqigfwq@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> From: Auger Eric Message-ID: <9ba9979c-3d0e-c416-f616-ab0a154ab236@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 14:40:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200306132957.ztjlr2g2ngqigfwq@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Cc: thuth@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, andre.przywara@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi Drew, On 3/6/20 2:29 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: >> Hi Drew, >> >> On 2/7/20 2:15 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:34:56AM +0100, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> Triggers LPIs through the INT command. >>>> >>>> the test checks the LPI hits the right CPU and triggers >>>> the right LPI intid, ie. the translation is correct. >>>> >>>> Updates to the config table also are tested, along with inv >>>> and invall commands. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> v2 -> v3: >>>> - add comments >>>> - keep the report_skip in case there aren't 4 vcpus to be able to >>>> run other tests in the its category. >>>> - fix the prefix pop >>>> - move its_event and its_stats to arm/gic.c >>>> --- >>>> arm/gic.c | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>>> arm/unittests.cfg | 7 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c >>>> index 4d7dd03..50104b1 100644 >>>> --- a/arm/gic.c >>>> +++ b/arm/gic.c >>>> @@ -160,6 +160,87 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused) >>>> } >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static void setup_irq(handler_t handler) >>>> +{ >>>> + gic_enable_defaults(); >>>> +#ifdef __arm__ >>>> + install_exception_handler(EXCPTN_IRQ, handler); >>>> +#else >>>> + install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, handler); >>>> +#endif >>>> + local_irq_enable(); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +#if defined(__aarch64__) >>>> +struct its_event { >>>> + int cpu_id; >>>> + int lpi_id; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +struct its_stats { >>>> + struct its_event expected; >>>> + struct its_event observed; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static struct its_stats lpi_stats; >>>> + >>>> +static void lpi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused) >>>> +{ >>>> + u32 irqstat = gic_read_iar(); >>>> + int irqnr = gic_iar_irqnr(irqstat); >>>> + >>>> + gic_write_eoir(irqstat); >>>> + if (irqnr < 8192) >>>> + report(false, "Unexpected non LPI interrupt received"); >>> >>> report_info >> why? This is an error case. We do not expect other interrupts than LPIs > > If there's almost no chance this will happen and it means something quite > unexpected has occurred, then it should probably be an assert. If this is > a real test case, then it should be > > report(irqnr >= 8192, "Got LPI"); > > or something like that. If it's something that shouldn't ever happen, so > it doesn't really deserve its own PASS/FAIL test output each execution > of the unit test, but you don't want to assert for some reason, then it > should be a report_info, but it should probably also contain a "WARNING" > prefix in that case. OK so the assert should be OK. > >>> >>>> + smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_stats_expect */ >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id = smp_processor_id(); >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id = irqnr; >>>> + smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_lpi_stats */ >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void lpi_stats_expect(int exp_cpu_id, int exp_lpi_id) >>>> +{ >>>> + lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id = exp_cpu_id; >>>> + lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id = exp_lpi_id; >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id = -1; >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id = -1; >>>> + smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in handler */ >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void check_lpi_stats(void) >>> >>> static void check_lpi_stats(const char *testname) >>> { >>> bool pass = false; >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + mdelay(100); >>>> + smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_handler */ >>>> + if ((lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id != lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id) || >>>> + (lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id != lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id)) { >>> >>> nit: extra () >>> >>>> + if (lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id == -1 && >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id == -1) { >>>> + report(false, >>>> + "No LPI received whereas (cpuid=%d, intid=%d) " >>>> + "was expected", lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id, >>>> + lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id); >>> >>> report_info >> What's the problem keeping those. Those are error reports. The message >> is something like that: >> FAIL: gicv3: its-trigger: mapc valid=false: No LPI received whereas >> (cpuid=1, intid=8192) was expected. >> >> So the testname is already part of the message. > > This one has two problems with being report() vs. report_info. The same > comment as above, where the condition for a report() should be the test, > rather than if (cond) report(false, ...), which implies it's not expected > to report at all. A pattern like that needs to be extended at least to > something like this > > if (cond) > report(true, ...) > else > report(false, ...) OK understood. I should have use the test as the 1st param. > > so we get the PASS/FAIL each execution. The other problem with this > particular report() is the dynamic info in it (cpuid and maybe intid). > A report() should only have consistent info so test output parsers > can count on finding the PASS/FAIL for a given report line. If you > need a test like this, then it can be structured like > > report_info(...); // dynamic info > if (cond) { > report(true, MSG1); // no dynamic info > report(true, MSG2); // no dynamic info > } else { > report(false, MSG1); // no dynamic info > report(false, MSG2); // no dynamic info > } > > Notice how the MSG's match on both paths of the condition. > > Or just > > report_info(...); > report(cond, ...); OK I see what you mean now. I will rewrite it accordingly. Thank you for the extra explanation Eric > >>> >>>> + } else { >>>> + report(false, "Unexpected LPI (cpuid=%d, intid=%d)", >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id, >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id); >>> >>> report_info >>> >>>> + } >>> >>> pass = false; >>> >>>> + } else if (lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id != -1) { >>>> + report(true, "LPI %d on CPU %d", lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id, >>>> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id); >>> >>> report_info >>> >>>> + } else { >>>> + report(true, "no LPI received, as expected"); >>> >>> report_info > > This if, else if, ..., else with report() would be fine if the messages > would all match, resulting in a single 'PASS: MSG' line. report_info can > be used to get the dynamic info output too. > >>> >>> >>>> + } >>> >>> report(pass, "%s", testname); >>> >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void secondary_lpi_test(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + setup_irq(lpi_handler); >>>> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &ready); >>>> + while (1) >>>> + wfi(); >>>> +} >>>> +#endif >>>> + >>>> static void gicv2_ipi_send_self(void) >>>> { >>>> writel(2 << 24 | IPI_IRQ, gicv2_dist_base() + GICD_SGIR); >>>> @@ -217,17 +298,6 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void) >>>> report_prefix_pop(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> -static void setup_irq(handler_t handler) >>>> -{ >>>> - gic_enable_defaults(); >>>> -#ifdef __arm__ >>>> - install_exception_handler(EXCPTN_IRQ, handler); >>>> -#else >>>> - install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, handler); >>>> -#endif >>>> - local_irq_enable(); >>>> -} >>>> - >>>> static void ipi_send(void) >>>> { >>>> setup_irq(ipi_handler); >>>> @@ -522,6 +592,7 @@ static void gic_test_mmio(void) >>>> #if defined(__arm__) >>>> >>>> static void test_its_introspection(void) {} >>>> +static void test_its_trigger(void) {} >>>> >>>> #else /* __arch64__ */ >>>> >>>> @@ -561,6 +632,137 @@ static void test_its_introspection(void) >>>> report_info("collection baser entry_size = 0x%x", coll_baser->esz); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static bool its_prerequisites(int nb_cpus) >>>> +{ >>>> + int cpu; >>>> + >>>> + if (!gicv3_its_base()) { >>>> + report_skip("No ITS, skip ..."); >>>> + return true; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + if (nr_cpus < 4) { >>> >>> nr_cpus < nb_cpus, or just drop the nb_cpus parameter and hard code 4 >>> here. >> sure >>> >>>> + report_skip("Test requires at least %d vcpus", nb_cpus); >>>> + return true; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + stats_reset(); >>>> + >>>> + setup_irq(lpi_handler); >>>> + >>>> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) { >>>> + if (cpu == 0) >>>> + continue; >>>> + smp_boot_secondary(cpu, secondary_lpi_test); >>>> + } >>>> + wait_on_ready(); >>>> + >>>> + its_enable_defaults(); >>>> + >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + >>>> + return false; >>> >>> Reverse logic. I'd expect 'return true' for success. >> I am going to return an int. In case of error a std negative error will >> be returned. >>> >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void test_its_trigger(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct its_collection *col3, *col2; >>>> + struct its_device *dev2, *dev7; >>>> + >>>> + if (its_prerequisites(4)) >>> >>> if (!its_prerequisites(...)) >>> >>>> + return; >>>> + >>>> + dev2 = its_create_device(2 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */); >>>> + dev7 = its_create_device(7 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */); >>>> + >>>> + col3 = its_create_collection(3 /* col id */, 3/* target PE */); >>>> + col2 = its_create_collection(2 /* col id */, 2/* target PE */); >>>> + >>>> + gicv3_lpi_set_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT); >>>> + gicv3_lpi_set_config(8196, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT); >>>> + >>>> + its_send_invall(col2); >>>> + its_send_invall(col3); >>>> + >>>> + report_prefix_push("int"); >>>> + /* >>>> + * dev=2, eventid=20 -> lpi= 8195, col=3 >>>> + * dev=7, eventid=255 -> lpi= 8196, col=2 >>>> + * Trigger dev2, eventid=20 and dev7, eventid=255 >>>> + * Check both LPIs hit >>>> + */ >>>> + >>>> + its_send_mapd(dev2, true); >>>> + its_send_mapd(dev7, true); >>>> + >>>> + its_send_mapc(col3, true); >>>> + its_send_mapc(col2, true); >>>> + >>>> + its_send_mapti(dev2, 8195 /* lpi id */, >>>> + 20 /* event id */, col3); >>>> + its_send_mapti(dev7, 8196 /* lpi id */, >>>> + 255 /* event id */, col2); >>> >>> No need for line breaks, with the embedded comments it's hard to read >> OK >>> >>>> + >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(3, 8195); >>>> + its_send_int(dev2, 20); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(2, 8196); >>>> + its_send_int(dev7, 255); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + >>>> + report_prefix_pop(); >>> >>> I think a table of parameters and loop would be nicer than all the >>> repeated function calls. >> Frankly speaking I am not sure this would really help. We are just >> enabling 2 translation paths. I think I prefer to manipulate the low >> level objects and helpers rather than playing with a loop and potential >> new structs of params. > > OK, but you could probably at least wrap the common sequence into one > function > > void master_function(a1, a2, a3, a4) > { > lpi_stats_expect(a1, a2); > its_send_int(a3, a4); > check_lpi_stats(); > } > > but whatever, it's not so important. > >>> >>>> + >>>> + report_prefix_push("inv/invall"); >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * disable 8195, check dev2/eventid=20 does not trigger the >>>> + * corresponding LPI >>>> + */ >>>> + gicv3_lpi_set_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT & ~0x1); >>> >>> LPI_PROP_DEFAULT & ~LPI_PROP_ENABLED >> ok >>> >>>> + its_send_inv(dev2, 20); >>>> + >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1); >>>> + its_send_int(dev2, 20); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * re-enable the LPI but willingly do not call invall >>>> + * so the change in config is not taken into account. >>>> + * The LPI should not hit >>>> + */ >>>> + gicv3_lpi_set_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT); >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1); >>>> + its_send_int(dev2, 20); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + >>>> + /* Now call the invall and check the LPI hits */ >>>> + its_send_invall(col3); >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(3, 8195); >>>> + its_send_int(dev2, 20); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + >>>> + report_prefix_pop(); >>> >>> Need blank line here. >> OK >>> >>>> + /* >>>> + * Unmap device 2 and check the eventid 20 formerly >>>> + * attached to it does not hit anymore >>>> + */ >>>> + report_prefix_push("mapd valid=false"); >>> >>> Above you have the prefix-push before the comment explaining the test. >>> After is probably better, but whatever, as long as it's consistent. >> moved after >>> >>>> + its_send_mapd(dev2, false); >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1); >>>> + its_send_int(dev2, 20); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + report_prefix_pop(); >>>> + >>>> + /* Unmap the collection this time and check no LPI does hit */ >>>> + report_prefix_push("mapc valid=false"); >>>> + its_send_mapc(col2, false); >>>> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1); >>>> + its_send_int(dev7, 255); >>>> + check_lpi_stats(); >>>> + report_prefix_pop(); >>>> +} >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> int main(int argc, char **argv) >>>> @@ -594,6 +796,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >>>> report_prefix_push(argv[1]); >>>> gic_test_mmio(); >>>> report_prefix_pop(); >>>> + } else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "its-trigger")) { >>>> + report_prefix_push(argv[1]); >>>> + test_its_trigger(); >>>> + report_prefix_pop(); >>>> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "its-introspection") == 0) { >>>> report_prefix_push(argv[1]); >>>> test_its_introspection(); >>>> diff --git a/arm/unittests.cfg b/arm/unittests.cfg >>>> index ba2b31b..bfafec5 100644 >>>> --- a/arm/unittests.cfg >>>> +++ b/arm/unittests.cfg >>>> @@ -129,6 +129,13 @@ extra_params = -machine gic-version=3 -append 'its-introspection' >>>> groups = its >>>> arch = arm64 >>>> >>>> +[its-trigger] >>>> +file = gic.flat >>>> +smp = $MAX_SMP >>>> +extra_params = -machine gic-version=3 -append 'its-trigger' >>>> +groups = its >>>> +arch = arm64 >>>> + >>>> # Test PSCI emulation >>>> [psci] >>>> file = psci.flat >>>> -- >>>> 2.20.1 >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> drew >>> >> Thanks >> >> Eric >> >> > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm