Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] selftests: KVM: Refactor psci_test to make it amenable to new tests

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

 



On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 07:54:01AM -0700, Oliver Upton wrote:
> Hi Drew,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 6:45 AM Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 07:16:09PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > > Split up the current test into several helpers that will be useful to
> > > subsequent test cases added to the PSCI test suite.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c | 68 ++++++++++++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c
> > > index 8d043e12b137..90312be335da 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c
> > > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static uint64_t psci_affinity_info(uint64_t target_affinity,
> > >       return res.a0;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -static void guest_main(uint64_t target_cpu)
> > > +static void guest_test_cpu_on(uint64_t target_cpu)
> > >  {
> > >       GUEST_ASSERT(!psci_cpu_on(target_cpu, CPU_ON_ENTRY_ADDR, CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID));
> > >       uint64_t target_state;
> > > @@ -69,12 +69,10 @@ static void vcpu_power_off(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid)
> > >       vcpu_set_mp_state(vm, vcpuid, &mp_state);
> > >  }

Context from last patch.

> > >
> > > -int main(void)
> > > +static struct kvm_vm *setup_vm(void *guest_code)
> > >  {
> > > -     uint64_t target_mpidr, obs_pc, obs_x0;
> > >       struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
> > >       struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > > -     struct ucall uc;
> > >
> > >       vm = vm_create(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, DEFAULT_GUEST_PHY_PAGES, O_RDWR);
> > >       kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name);
> > > @@ -83,31 +81,28 @@ int main(void)
> > >       vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init);
> > >       init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2);
> > >
> > > -     aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &init, guest_main);
> > > -     aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, &init, guest_main);
> > > +     aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &init, guest_code);
> > > +     aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, &init, guest_code);

Context from last patch.

> > >
> > > -     /*
> > > -      * make sure the target is already off when executing the test.
> > > -      */
> > > -     vcpu_power_off(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET);
> > > +     return vm;
> > > +}
> > >
> > > -     get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_SYS_REG(MPIDR_EL1), &target_mpidr);
> > > -     vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, 1, target_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK);
> > > -     vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE);
> > > +static void enter_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct ucall uc;
> > >
> > > -     switch (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &uc)) {
> > > -     case UCALL_DONE:
> > > -             break;
> > > -     case UCALL_ABORT:
> > > +     vcpu_run(vm, vcpuid);
> > > +     if (get_ucall(vm, vcpuid, &uc) == UCALL_ABORT)
> > >               TEST_FAIL("%s at %s:%ld", (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__,
> > >                         uc.args[1]);
> > > -             break;
> > > -     default:
> > > -             TEST_FAIL("Unhandled ucall: %lu", uc.cmd);
> > > -     }
> > > +}
> > >
> > > -     get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), &obs_pc);
> > > -     get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]), &obs_x0);
> > > +static void assert_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid)
> > > +{
> > > +     uint64_t obs_pc, obs_x0;
> > > +
> > > +     get_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), &obs_pc);
> > > +     get_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]), &obs_x0);
> > >
> > >       TEST_ASSERT(obs_pc == CPU_ON_ENTRY_ADDR,
> > >                   "unexpected target cpu pc: %lx (expected: %lx)",
> > > @@ -115,7 +110,34 @@ int main(void)
> > >       TEST_ASSERT(obs_x0 == CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID,
> > >                   "unexpected target context id: %lx (expected: %lx)",
> > >                   obs_x0, CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID);
> > > +}
> > >
> > > +static void host_test_cpu_on(void)
> > > +{
> > > +     uint64_t target_mpidr;
> > > +     struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > > +     struct ucall uc;
> > > +
> > > +     vm = setup_vm(guest_test_cpu_on);
> > > +
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * make sure the target is already off when executing the test.
> > > +      */
> > > +     vcpu_power_off(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET);
> > > +
> > > +     get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_SYS_REG(MPIDR_EL1), &target_mpidr);
> > > +     vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, 1, target_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK);
> > > +     enter_guest(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE);
> > > +
> > > +     if (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &uc) != UCALL_DONE)
> > > +             TEST_FAIL("Unhandled ucall: %lu", uc.cmd);
> > > +
> > > +     assert_vcpu_reset(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET);
> > >       kvm_vm_free(vm);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int main(void)
> > > +{
> > > +     host_test_cpu_on();
> > >       return 0;
> > >  }
> > > --
> > > 2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog
> > >
> >
> > Hard to read diff, but I think the refactoring comes out right.
> 
> Yeah, this one's nasty, sorry about that. Thanks for parsing it out, heh.
> 
> > Please do this refactoring before adding the new test in the next revision, though.
> >
> 
> This is 10/11 in the series, and the test is 11/11. I'm not seeing any
> context belonging to the last patch, but perhaps I'm missing something
> obvious.

It's not much, but nicer to have none.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --
> Best,
> Oliver
> 




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux