From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 07/17] arm: gic: Extend check_acked() to allow silent call
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:32:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7aca029b-c2f7-aef9-9fac-b79f5ff5658b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191114123224.2b5jr73qqtgtc7na@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
Hi,
On 11/14/19 12:32 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:23:04PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> check_acked is starting to become hard to read.
> Agreed. check_acked() could probably have some of its subtests factored
> out to improve its readability.
>
>> The function itself is rather inconsistent, as it mixes regular
>> printf's with report_info's.
> Sounds good
>
>> The return value is also never used:
>>
>> $ awk '/check_acked\(/ && !/const/' arm/gic.c
>> check_acked("IPI: self", &mask);
>> check_acked("IPI: directed", &mask);
>> check_acked("IPI: broadcast", &mask);
> That's good, since it's a void function :-)
Sorry, got confused, this patch changes it to return a value, and that value is
ignored in the existing functions (the ones I listed above), which would make the
usage of check_acked very inconsistent.
>> What I'm thinking is that we can rewrite check_acked to return true/false (or
>> 0/1), meaning success or failure, remove the testname parameter, replace the
>> printfs to report_info, and have the caller do a report based on the value
>> returned by check_acked.
>>
>> Rough version, compile tested only, I'm sure it can be improved:
>>
>> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
>> index adb6aa464513..5453f2fd3d5f 100644
>> --- a/arm/gic.c
>> +++ b/arm/gic.c
>> @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ static void stats_reset(void)
>> smp_wmb();
>> }
>>
>> -static void check_acked(const char *testname, cpumask_t *mask)
>> +static bool check_acked(cpumask_t *mask)
> We have several check_* functions in arm/gic.c, and they're all void
> functions. Changing this one to a bool would be inconsistent, but
> maybe that consistency isn't that important, or maybe they should all
> be bool?
I think they should stay void, because they compute statistics, or print a warning
if we got a spurious interrupt (check_spurious). I'm not really sure what to do
about check_acked at the moment, I'll think about it some more.
>> {
>> int missing = 0, extra = 0, unexpected = 0;
>> int nr_pass, cpu, i;
>> - bool bad = false;
>> + bool success = true;
>>
>> /* Wait up to 5s for all interrupts to be delivered */
>> for (i = 0; i < 50; ++i) {
>> @@ -76,22 +76,21 @@ static void check_acked(const char *testname, cpumask_t *mask)
>> acked[cpu] == 1 : acked[cpu] == 0;
>>
>> if (bad_sender[cpu] != -1) {
>> - printf("cpu%d received IPI from wrong sender %d\n",
>> + report_info("cpu%d received IPI from wrong sender
>> %d\n",
>> cpu, bad_sender[cpu]);
>> - bad = true;
>> + success = false;
>> }
>>
>> if (bad_irq[cpu] != -1) {
>> - printf("cpu%d received wrong irq %d\n",
>> + report_info("cpu%d received wrong irq %d\n",
>> cpu, bad_irq[cpu]);
>> - bad = true;
>> + success = false;
>> }
>> }
>> if (nr_pass == nr_cpus) {
>> - report("%s", !bad, testname);
>> if (i)
>> report_info("took more than %d ms", i * 100);
>> - return;
>> + return success;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -107,9 +106,9 @@ static void check_acked(const char *testname, cpumask_t *mask)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - report("%s", false, testname);
>> report_info("Timed-out (5s). ACKS: missing=%d extra=%d unexpected=%d",
>> missing, extra, unexpected);
>> + return false;
>> }
>>
>> static void check_spurious(void)
>> @@ -183,13 +182,11 @@ static void ipi_test_self(void)
>> {
>> cpumask_t mask;
>>
>> - report_prefix_push("self");
>> stats_reset();
>> cpumask_clear(&mask);
>> cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
>> gic->ipi.send_self();
>> - check_acked("IPI: self", &mask);
>> - report_prefix_pop();
>> + report("self", check_acked(&mask));
>> }
>>
>> static void ipi_test_smp(void)
>> @@ -203,7 +200,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
>> for (i = smp_processor_id() & 1; i < nr_cpus; i += 2)
>> cpumask_clear_cpu(i, &mask);
>> gic_ipi_send_mask(IPI_IRQ, &mask);
>> - check_acked("IPI: directed", &mask);
>> + report("directed", check_acked(&mask));
>> report_prefix_pop();
> Shouldn't we also drop the "target-list" prefix push/pop?
>
>>
>> report_prefix_push("broadcast");
>> @@ -211,7 +208,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
>> cpumask_copy(&mask, &cpu_present_mask);
>> cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
>> gic->ipi.send_broadcast();
>> - check_acked("IPI: broadcast", &mask);
>> + report("broadcast", check_acked(&mask));
>> report_prefix_pop();
>> }
> Shouldn't we also drop the "broadcast" prefix push/pop?
My suggestion was a quick hack to give an idea of how it might look, it can
definitely be improved :)
Thanks,
Alex
>>
>> I've removed "IPI" from the report string because the prefixed was already pushed
>> in main.
>>
>> Andrew, what do you think? Are we missing something obvious? Do you have a better
>> idea?
> I'm happy to see cleanups and haven't had a chance to look too closely at
> the gic tests in a while so I have no better ideas :-)
>
> Thanks,
> drew
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-15 11:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-08 14:42 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 00/17] arm: gic: Test SPIs and interrupt groups Andre Przywara
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 01/17] arm: gic: Enable GIC MMIO tests for GICv3 as well Andre Przywara
2019-11-08 17:28 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-12 12:49 ` Auger Eric
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 02/17] arm: gic: Generalise function names Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 11:11 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-12 12:49 ` Auger Eric
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 03/17] arm: gic: Provide per-IRQ helper functions Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 12:51 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-12 15:53 ` Auger Eric
2019-11-12 16:53 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-12 13:49 ` Auger Eric
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 04/17] arm: gic: Support no IRQs test case Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 13:26 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-12 21:14 ` Auger Eric
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 05/17] arm: gic: Prepare IRQ handler for handling SPIs Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 13:36 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-12 20:56 ` Auger Eric
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 06/17] arm: gic: Add simple shared IRQ test Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 13:54 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 07/17] arm: gic: Extend check_acked() to allow silent call Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 15:23 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-14 12:32 ` Andrew Jones
2019-11-15 11:32 ` Alexandru Elisei [this message]
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 08/17] arm: gic: Add simple SPI MP test Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 15:41 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 09/17] arm: gic: Add test for flipping GICD_CTLR.DS Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 16:42 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-14 13:39 ` Vladimir Murzin
2019-11-14 14:17 ` Andre Przywara
2019-11-14 14:50 ` Vladimir Murzin
2019-11-14 15:21 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-14 15:27 ` Peter Maydell
2019-11-14 15:47 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-14 15:56 ` Peter Maydell
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 10/17] arm: gic: Check for writable IGROUPR registers Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 16:51 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 11/17] arm: gic: Check for validity of both group enable bits Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 16:58 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 12/17] arm: gic: Change gic_read_iar() to take group parameter Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 17:19 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-14 12:50 ` Andrew Jones
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 13/17] arm: gic: Change write_eoir() " Andre Przywara
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 14/17] arm: gic: Prepare for receiving GIC group 0 interrupts via FIQs Andre Przywara
2019-11-12 17:30 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 15/17] arm: gic: Provide FIQ handler Andre Przywara
2019-11-13 10:14 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 16/17] arm: gic: Prepare interrupt statistics for both groups Andre Przywara
2019-11-13 10:44 ` Alexandru Elisei
2019-11-08 14:42 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 17/17] arm: gic: Test Group0 SPIs Andre Przywara
2019-11-13 11:26 ` Alexandru Elisei
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=7aca029b-c2f7-aef9-9fac-b79f5ff5658b@arm.com \
--to=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).