Hi, On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 08:21:24AM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:36:14PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Some more comments below. > > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:55:25AM +0000, Ricardo Koller wrote: > > > PMUv3p5 uses 64-bit counters irrespective of whether the PMU is configured > > > for overflowing at 32 or 64-bits. The consequence is that tests that check > > > the counter values after overflowing should not assume that values will be > > > wrapped around 32-bits: they overflow into the other half of the 64-bit > > > counters on PMUv3p5. > > > > > > Fix tests by correctly checking overflowing-counters against the expected > > > 64-bit value. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arm/pmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++----------- > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c > > > index cd47b14..eeac984 100644 > > > --- a/arm/pmu.c > > > +++ b/arm/pmu.c > > > @@ -54,10 +54,10 @@ > > > #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_LOW 0x4000 > > > #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_HIGH 0x403F > > > > > > -#define ALL_SET 0xFFFFFFFF > > > -#define ALL_CLEAR 0x0 > > > -#define PRE_OVERFLOW 0xFFFFFFF0 > > > -#define PRE_OVERFLOW2 0xFFFFFFDC > > > +#define ALL_SET 0x00000000FFFFFFFFULL > > > +#define ALL_CLEAR 0x0000000000000000ULL > > > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW 0x00000000FFFFFFF0ULL > > > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW2 0x00000000FFFFFFDCULL > > > > > > #define PMU_PPI 23 > > > > > > @@ -538,6 +538,7 @@ static void test_mem_access(void) > > > static void test_sw_incr(void) > > > { > > > uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, SW_INCR}; > > > + uint64_t cntr0; > > > int i; > > > > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events))) > > > @@ -572,9 +573,9 @@ static void test_sw_incr(void) > > > write_sysreg(0x3, pmswinc_el0); > > > > > > isb(); > > > - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84, "counter #1 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > > - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 100, > > > - "counter #0 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > > + cntr0 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 84 : PRE_OVERFLOW + 100; > > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == cntr0, "counter #0 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 100, "counter #1 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > > report_info("counter values after 100 SW_INCR #0=%ld #1=%ld", > > > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > > > report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, > > > @@ -584,6 +585,7 @@ static void test_sw_incr(void) > > > static void test_chained_counters(void) > > > { > > > uint32_t events[] = {CPU_CYCLES, CHAIN}; > > > + uint64_t cntr1; > > > > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events))) > > > return; > > > @@ -618,13 +620,16 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void) > > > > > > precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); > > > report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); > > > - report(!read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); > > > + cntr1 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 0 : ALL_SET + 1; > > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == cntr1, "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); > > > > It looks to me like the intention of the test was to check that the counter > > programmed with the CHAIN event wraps, judging from the report message. > > > > Ah, right. Yeah, that message is confusing. It should be the short > version of "Inrementing at 32-bits resulted in the right value". > > > I think it would be interesting to keep that by programming counter #1 with > > ~0ULL when PMUv3p5 (maybe call it ALL_SET64?) and test the counter value > > against 0. > > The last commit adds tests using ALL_SET64. Tests can be run in two > modes: overflow_at_64bits and not. However, this test, > test_chained_counters(), and all other chained tests only use the > !overflow_at_64bits mode (even after the last commit). The reason is > that there are no CHAIN events when overflowing at 64-bits (more details > in the commit message). But, don't worry, there are lots of tests that > check wrapping at 64-bits (overflow_at_64bits=true). What I was suggesting is this (change on top of this series, not on top of this patch, to get access to ALL_SET_AT): diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c index 3cb563b1abe4..fd7f20fc6c52 100644 --- a/arm/pmu.c +++ b/arm/pmu.c @@ -607,7 +607,6 @@ static void test_sw_incr(bool overflow_at_64bits) static void test_chained_counters(bool overflow_at_64bits) { uint32_t events[] = {CPU_CYCLES, CHAIN}; - uint64_t cntr1; if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events), overflow_at_64bits)) @@ -639,12 +638,11 @@ static void test_chained_counters(bool overflow_at_64bits) report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #2"); write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW); - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET); + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET_AT(overflow_at_64bits)); precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E); report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0)); - cntr1 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 0 : ALL_SET + 1; - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == cntr1, "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0, "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters"); } The counters are 64bit, but the CHAIN event should still work because PMCR_EL0.LP is 0, according to the event description in the Arm ARM (ARM DDI 0487I.a, page D17-6461). Thanks, Alex > > > Alternatively, the report message can be modified, and "wrapped" > > replaced with "incremented" (or something like that), to avoid confusion. > > > > > + > > > report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters"); > > > } > > > > > > static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > > > { > > > uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, CHAIN}; > > > + uint64_t cntr0, cntr1; > > > int i; > > > > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events))) > > > @@ -665,10 +670,12 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > > > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0); > > > > > > isb(); > > > + cntr0 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 0 : ALL_SET + 1; > > > + cntr1 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 84 : PRE_OVERFLOW + 100; > > > report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3) && > > > - (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0) && > > > - (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84), > > > - "expected overflows and values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > > > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == cntr0) && > > > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == cntr1), > > > > This is hard to parse, it would be better if counter 0 is compared against > > cntr0 and counter 1 against cntr1. > > Ah, yes, code is correct but that's indeed confusing. > > > > > Also, same suggestion here, looks like the test wants to check that the > > odd-numbered counter wraps around when counting the CHAIN event. > > Ack. Will update for v2. > > Thanks! > Ricardo > > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > > + "expected overflows and values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > > > report_info("overflow=0x%lx, #0=%ld #1=%ld", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), > > > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.39.0.rc0.267.gcb52ba06e7-goog > > >