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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBECC7619A for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229692AbjC0Lph (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:45:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34768 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229475AbjC0Lpg (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:45:36 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F941FF3; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 04:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32RB1gWs003002; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:33 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=haU/+pBGHGrXy1nlPx7R0zdhMnpuNobijhi5H7iCoCY=; b=tJTDhvtA7bqnO6HSmYtLPjFs5TGfIspqJ4H5ExAOB3USac/jcBz8/s/R94+lomAg2Zzz ORApALDSjTreeKkiK8uv1Ibxyg0JiaOIqCCFY9dn+LczRx3So11hAU+4JYujAZJtwrHn 0C/azlk4IHpE3i4HsD0JdshgGPd/JNOg4xi2QvpyqfdNa6RHSTRuIbbh7U85RJA5WbPL zh8qUmZ4Zni6OAU1oMAwEyjLSs9H94v7O4VMGLGeQtd02ZwudlKrsnjozgnyTw6Q/e8I L0w40xjybgLQ1TkWWAW/vu3asSfsylDRiFJkJ05qakJHi2Q1FtU+r0HJ38CbexJulnea sQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pjasre0n3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:33 +0000 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 32RB2f3S009969; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:32 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pjasre0m7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:32 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32RAGkxm030303; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:30 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.226]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3phr7fjqxg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:30 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.104]) by smtprelay02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 32RBjQw029884954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:26 GMT Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9844D2005A; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2BD2004F; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.92.86] (unknown [9.171.92.86]) by smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:45:26 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:45:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 1/2] s390x: topology: Check the Perform Topology Function To: Claudio Imbrenda Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com, nsg@linux.ibm.com References: <20230320085642.12251-1-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20230320085642.12251-2-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20230323164512.4cdf985e@p-imbrenda> Content-Language: en-US From: Pierre Morel In-Reply-To: <20230323164512.4cdf985e@p-imbrenda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: wJUZiCPnmdnhgCBkLSZJ9CeQJ4aGg13C X-Proofpoint-GUID: oFC_1sywnm_Aw9CGitDDBoi46vlWcXI5 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-03-24_11,2023-03-27_01,2023-02-09_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2303200000 definitions=main-2303270090 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 3/23/23 16:45, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:56:41 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> We check that the PTF instruction is working correctly when >> the cpu topology facility is available. >> >> For KVM only, we test changing of the polarity between horizontal >> and vertical and that a reset set the horizontal polarity. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >> --- >> s390x/Makefile | 1 + >> s390x/topology.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> s390x/unittests.cfg | 3 + >> 3 files changed, 184 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 s390x/topology.c >> >> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile >> index e94b720..05dac04 100644 >> --- a/s390x/Makefile >> +++ b/s390x/Makefile >> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/panic-loop-pgm.elf >> tests += $(TEST_DIR)/migration-sck.elf >> tests += $(TEST_DIR)/exittime.elf >> tests += $(TEST_DIR)/ex.elf >> +tests += $(TEST_DIR)/topology.elf >> >> pv-tests += $(TEST_DIR)/pv-diags.elf >> >> diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..ce248f1 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/s390x/topology.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >> +/* >> + * CPU Topology >> + * >> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2022 >> + * >> + * Authors: >> + * Pierre Morel >> + */ >> + >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> + >> +#define PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL 0 >> +#define PTF_REQ_VERTICAL 1 >> +#define PTF_REQ_CHECK 2 >> + >> +#define PTF_ERR_NO_REASON 0 >> +#define PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED 1 >> +#define PTF_ERR_IN_PROGRESS 2 >> + >> +extern int diag308_load_reset(u64); >> + >> +static int ptf(unsigned long fc, unsigned long *rc) >> +{ >> + int cc; >> + >> + asm volatile( >> + " ptf %1 \n" >> + " ipm %0 \n" >> + " srl %0,28 \n" >> + : "=d" (cc), "+d" (fc) >> + : >> + : "cc"); >> + >> + *rc = fc >> 8; >> + return cc; >> +} >> + >> +static void check_privilege(int fc) >> +{ >> + unsigned long rc; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("Privilege"); >> + report_info("function code %d", fc); >> + enter_pstate(); >> + expect_pgm_int(); >> + ptf(fc, &rc); >> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION); >> + report_prefix_pop(); >> +} >> + >> +static void check_function_code(void) >> +{ >> + unsigned long rc; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("Undefined fc"); >> + expect_pgm_int(); >> + ptf(0xff, &rc); > please don't use magic numbers, add a new macro PTF_INVALID_FUNCTION > (or something like that) OK > >> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION); >> + report_prefix_pop(); >> +} >> + >> +static void check_reserved_bits(void) >> +{ >> + unsigned long rc; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("Reserved bits"); >> + expect_pgm_int(); >> + ptf(0xffffffffffffff00UL, &rc); > I would like every single bit to be tested, since all of them are > required to be zero. > > make a loop and test each, but please report success of failure only > once at the end. > use a report_info in case of failure to indicate which bit failed OK > >> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION); >> + report_prefix_pop(); >> +} >> + >> +static void check_mtcr_pending(void) >> +{ >> + unsigned long rc; >> + int cc; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("Topology Report pending"); >> + /* >> + * At this moment the topology may already have changed >> + * since the VM has been started. >> + * However, we can test if a second PTF instruction >> + * reports that the topology did not change since the >> + * preceding PFT instruction. >> + */ >> + ptf(PTF_REQ_CHECK, &rc); >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_CHECK, &rc); >> + report(cc == 0, "PTF check should clear topology report"); >> + report_prefix_pop(); >> +} >> + >> +static void check_polarization_change(void) >> +{ >> + unsigned long rc; >> + int cc; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("Topology polarization check"); >> + >> + /* We expect a clean state through reset */ >> + report(diag308_load_reset(1), "load normal reset done"); >> + >> + /* >> + * Set vertical polarization to verify that RESET sets >> + * horizontal polarization back. >> + */ >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc); >> + report(cc == 0, "Set vertical polarization."); >> + >> + report(diag308_load_reset(1), "load normal reset done"); >> + >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_CHECK, &rc); >> + report(cc == 0, "Reset should clear topology report"); >> + >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc); >> + report(cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED, >> + "After RESET polarization is horizontal"); >> + >> + /* Flip between vertical and horizontal polarization */ >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc); >> + report(cc == 0, "Change to vertical polarization."); > either here or in a new block, test that setting vertical twice in > a row will also result in a cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED OK > >> + >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_CHECK, &rc); >> + report(cc == 1, "Polarization change should set topology report"); >> + >> + cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc); >> + report(cc == 0, "Change to horizontal polarization."); > it cannot hurt to add here another check for pending reports OK Thanks for the comments, Regards, Pierre