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 <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >> + 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, ...)
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, ...);
> >
> >> + } 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
