I've tested patch v2 along with the fix in the switch case. The
performance numbers look sane on my seattle server.
Tested-by: Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Shih-Wei
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Shih-Wei Li wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > +static bool test_init(void)
>>> > +{
>>> > + int v = gic_init();
>>> > +
>>> > + if (!v) {
>>> > + printf("No supported gic present, skipping tests...\n");
>>> > + return false;
>>> > + }
>>> > +
>>> > + if (nr_cpus < 2) {
>>> > + printf("At least two cpus required, skipping tests...\n");
>>> > + return false;
>>> > + }
>>> > +
>>> > + switch (v) {
>>> > + case 2:
>>> > + vgic_dist_base = gicv2_dist_base();
>>> > + write_eoir = gicv2_write_eoir;
>>> > + case 3:
>>> > + vgic_dist_base = gicv3_dist_base();
>>> > + write_eoir = gicv3_write_eoir;
>>> > + }
>>>
>>> I think we'll need a "break" in the switch case body for gicv2 here
>>> otherwise it'll fall into the case body below and refer to the wrong
>>> symbols for gicv3.
>>>
>>> As I've tested on my seattle server hardware (with gicv2), this results
>>> to incorrect execution in mmio_read_vgic_exec and a crash in
>>> eoi_exec().
>>>
>>
>> Argh... Obviously my testing of this was pretty poor. You are certainly
>> right that I'm missing breaks in this switch. If you don't mind, please
>> add them, along with the fix in v2, to your local repo and test again.
>> I'll hold off on sending v3 until you've had a chance to test and review
>> more.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> drew
>
> I've added the break to the switch and it resolved the problems I
> mentioned earlier. I'll do more testing and reviewing, and will get
> back to you as soon as I can.
>
> Thanks for formalizing the new patch set for micro-test!
>
> Shih-Wei
