Re: [Qemu-devel] [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 10/10] arm/arm64: gic: don't just use zero

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Drew,

On 15/07/2016 15:00, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Allow user to select who sends ipis and with which irq,
> rather than just always sending irq=0 from cpu0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> v2: actually check that the irq received was the irq sent,
>     and (for gicv2) that the sender is the expected one.
> ---
>  arm/gic.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index fc7ef241de3e2..d3ab97d4ae470 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>   * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2.
>   */
>  #include <libcflat.h>
> +#include <util.h>
>  #include <asm/setup.h>
>  #include <asm/processor.h>
>  #include <asm/gic.h>
> @@ -33,6 +34,8 @@ static struct gic *gic;
>  static int gic_version;
>  static int acked[NR_CPUS], spurious[NR_CPUS];
>  static cpumask_t ready;
> +static int sender;
> +static u32 irq;
>  
>  static void nr_cpu_check(int nr)
>  {
> @@ -85,7 +88,16 @@ static void check_acked(cpumask_t *mask)
>  
>  static u32 gicv2_read_iar(void)
>  {
> -	return readl(gicv2_cpu_base() + GIC_CPU_INTACK);
> +	u32 iar = readl(gicv2_cpu_base() + GIC_CPU_INTACK);
> +	int src = (iar >> 10) & 7;
> +
> +	if (src != sender) {
> +		report("cpu%d received IPI from unexpected source cpu%d "
> +		       "(expected cpu%d)",
> +		       false, smp_processor_id(), src, sender);
> +	}
> +
> +	return iar & 0x3ff;
you can use GICC_IAR_INT_ID_MASK instead
>  }
>  
>  static void gicv2_write_eoi(u32 irq)
> @@ -99,9 +111,15 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>  
>  	if (iar != GICC_INT_SPURIOUS) {
>  		gic->write_eoi(iar);
> -		smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in ipi_test functions */
> -		++acked[smp_processor_id()];
> -		smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_acked */
> +		if (iar == irq) {
> +			smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in ipi_test functions */
> +			++acked[smp_processor_id()];
> +			smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_acked */
> +		} else {
> +			report("cpu%d received unexpected irq %u "
> +			       "(expected %u)",
> +			       false, smp_processor_id(), iar, irq);
> +		}
>  	} else {
>  		++spurious[smp_processor_id()];
>  		smp_wmb();
> @@ -110,19 +128,19 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>  
>  static void gicv2_ipi_send_self(void)
>  {
> -	writel(2 << 24, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> +	writel(2 << 24 | irq, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>  }
>  
>  static void gicv2_ipi_send_tlist(cpumask_t *mask)
>  {
>  	u8 tlist = (u8)cpumask_bits(mask)[0];
>  
> -	writel(tlist << 16, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> +	writel(tlist << 16 | irq, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>  }
>  
>  static void gicv2_ipi_send_broadcast(void)
>  {
> -	writel(1 << 24, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> +	writel(1 << 24 | irq, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>  }
>  
>  #define ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_1_SHIFT	16
> @@ -165,7 +183,7 @@ static void gicv3_ipi_send_tlist(cpumask_t *mask)
>  
>  		sgi1r = (MPIDR_TO_SGI_AFFINITY(cluster_id, 3)	|
>  			 MPIDR_TO_SGI_AFFINITY(cluster_id, 2)	|
> -			 /* irq << 24				| */
> +			 irq << 24				|
>  			 MPIDR_TO_SGI_AFFINITY(cluster_id, 1)	|
>  			 tlist);
>  
> @@ -187,7 +205,7 @@ static void gicv3_ipi_send_self(void)
>  
>  static void gicv3_ipi_send_broadcast(void)
>  {
> -	gicv3_write_sgi1r(1ULL << 40);
> +	gicv3_write_sgi1r(1ULL << 40 | irq << 24);
>  	isb();
>  }
>  
> @@ -199,7 +217,7 @@ static void ipi_test_self(void)
>  	memset(acked, 0, sizeof(acked));
>  	smp_wmb();
>  	cpumask_clear(&mask);
> -	cpumask_set_cpu(0, &mask);
> +	cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
>  	gic->ipi.send_self();
>  	check_acked(&mask);
>  	report_prefix_pop();
> @@ -214,7 +232,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
>  	memset(acked, 0, sizeof(acked));
>  	smp_wmb();
>  	cpumask_copy(&mask, &cpu_present_mask);
> -	for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i += 2)
> +	for (i = smp_processor_id() & 1; i < nr_cpus; i += 2)
>  		cpumask_clear_cpu(i, &mask);
>  	gic->ipi.send_tlist(&mask);
>  	check_acked(&mask);
> @@ -224,7 +242,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
>  	memset(acked, 0, sizeof(acked));
>  	smp_wmb();
>  	cpumask_copy(&mask, &cpu_present_mask);
> -	cpumask_clear_cpu(0, &mask);
> +	cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
>  	gic->ipi.send_broadcast();
>  	check_acked(&mask);
>  	report_prefix_pop();
> @@ -241,6 +259,15 @@ static void ipi_enable(void)
>  	local_irq_enable();
>  }
>  
> +static void ipi_send(void)
> +{
> +	ipi_enable();
> +	wait_on_ready();
> +	ipi_test_self();
> +	ipi_test_smp();
> +	exit(report_summary());
> +}
> +
>  static void ipi_recv(void)
>  {
>  	ipi_enable();
> @@ -300,19 +327,40 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  		report_prefix_pop();
>  
>  	} else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "ipi")) {
> +		int off, i = 1;
> +		long val;
>  
>  		report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> +
> +		while (--argc != 1) {
> +			off = parse_keyval(argv[++i], &val);
> +			if (off == -1)
> +				continue;
> +			argv[i][off] = '\0';
> +			if (strcmp(argv[i], "sender") == 0)
> +				sender = val;
> +			else if (strcmp(argv[i], "irq") == 0)
> +				irq = val;
> +		}
> +
>  		nr_cpu_check(2);
>  		ipi_enable();
>  
>  		for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>  			if (cpu == 0)
>  				continue;
> -			smp_boot_secondary(cpu, ipi_recv);
> +			if (cpu == sender)
> +				smp_boot_secondary(cpu, ipi_send);
> +			else
> +				smp_boot_secondary(cpu, ipi_recv);
> +		}
> +		if (sender == 0)  {
> +			wait_on_ready();
> +			ipi_test_self();
> +			ipi_test_smp();
> +		} else {
> +			ipi_recv();
>  		}
> -		wait_on_ready();
> -		ipi_test_self();
> -		ipi_test_smp();
>  
>  		smp_rmb();
>  		for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> 

I ran the tests on both Cavium & Seattle HW without noticing issues.

I guess the file organization & infra will need to change while adding
some new tests, removing some globals ... but that's a good start to
show how to write new tests. I am a bit concerned by the LOCs and
redundancies with the kernel with possible out-of-sync macros but well I
think there is no other way.

I will spend some time writing some tests within the next weeks.

Thanks!

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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux