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