Hi,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 02:31:56PM +0000, Nikita Venkatesh wrote:
> The test uses the following method.
>
> The primary CPU brings up all the secondary CPUs, which are held in a wait
> loop. Once the primary releases the CPUs, each of the secondary CPUs
> proceed to issue PSCI_CPU_OFF. This is indicated by a cpumask and also
> the status of the call is updated by the secondary CPU in cpu_off_done[].
>
> The primary CPU waits for all the secondary CPUs to update the cpumask
> and then proceeds to check for the status of the individual CPU CPU_OFF
> request. There is a chance that some CPUs might fail at the CPU_OFF
> request and come back and update the status once the primary CPU has
> finished the scan. There is no fool proof method to handle this. As of
> now, we add a 1sec delay between the cpumask check and the scan for the
> status.
>
> The test can be triggered by "cpu-off" command line argument.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think that's true anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikita Venkatesh <Nikita.Venkatesh@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arm/psci.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arm/psci.c b/arm/psci.c
> index 0b9834c..8e664c2 100644
> --- a/arm/psci.c
> +++ b/arm/psci.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@
> #include <asm/processor.h>
> #include <asm/smp.h>
> #include <asm/psci.h>
> +#include <asm/delay.h>
> +
> +#define CPU_OFF_TEST_WAIT_TIME 1000
>
> static bool invalid_function_exception;
>
> @@ -69,8 +72,10 @@ static bool psci_affinity_info_off(void)
> }
>
> static int cpu_on_ret[NR_CPUS];
> -static cpumask_t cpu_on_ready, cpu_on_done;
> +static bool cpu_off_success[NR_CPUS];
> +static cpumask_t cpu_on_ready, cpu_on_done, cpu_off_done;
> static volatile int cpu_on_start;
> +static volatile int cpu_off_start;
>
> extern void secondary_entry(void);
> static void cpu_on_wake_target(void)
> @@ -92,11 +97,25 @@ static void cpu_on_target(void)
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_on_done);
> }
>
> +static void cpu_off_secondary_entry(void *data)
> +{
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> + while (!cpu_off_start)
> + cpu_relax();
> + /* On to the CPU off test */
> + cpu_off_success[cpu] = true;
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_off_done);
> + cpu_psci_cpu_die();
> + /* The CPU shouldn't execute the next steps. */
> + cpu_off_success[cpu] = false;
> +}
> +
> static bool psci_cpu_on_test(void)
> {
> bool failed = false;
> int ret_success = 0;
> - int cpu;
> + int i, cpu;
>
> for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> if (cpu < 2)
> @@ -125,6 +144,25 @@ static bool psci_cpu_on_test(void)
> while (!cpumask_full(&cpu_on_done))
> cpu_relax();
>
> + report_info("waiting for CPU1 to come online...");
> + for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> + mdelay(100);
> + if (cpumask_full(&cpu_on_done))
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (!cpumask_full(&cpu_on_done)) {
> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_on_done)) {
> + if (cpu == 1)
> + report_info("CPU1 failed to come online");
> + else
> + report_info("CPU%d failed to online CPU1", cpu);
> + }
> + }
> + return false;
> + }
> +
This change should be part of the previous patch.
> for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> if (cpu_on_ret[cpu] == PSCI_RET_SUCCESS) {
> ret_success++;
> @@ -142,7 +180,44 @@ static bool psci_cpu_on_test(void)
> return !failed;
> }
>
> -int main(void)
> +static bool psci_cpu_off_test(void)
> +{
> + bool failed = false;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == 0)
> + continue;
> + on_cpu_async(cpu, cpu_off_secondary_entry, NULL);
> + }
> +
> + cpumask_set_cpu(0, &cpu_off_done);
> +
> + report_info("starting CPU_OFF test...");
> +
> + /* Release the CPUs */
> + cpu_off_start = 1;
> +
> + /* Wait until all are done */
> + while (!cpumask_full(&cpu_off_done))
> + cpu_relax();
> +
> + /* Allow all the other CPUs to complete the operation */
> + mdelay(CPU_OFF_TEST_WAIT_TIME);
> +
> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == 0)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!cpu_off_success[cpu]) {
> + report_info("CPU%d could not be turned off", cpu);
> + failed = true;
> + }
> + }
> + return !failed;
> +}
> +
> +int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> int ver = psci_invoke(PSCI_0_2_FN_PSCI_VERSION, 0, 0, 0);
>
> @@ -154,15 +229,18 @@ int main(void)
> }
>
> report_info("PSCI version %d.%d", PSCI_VERSION_MAJOR(ver),
> - PSCI_VERSION_MINOR(ver));
> + PSCI_VERSION_MINOR(ver));
This change is unneeded. Whitespace change?
> +
> report(psci_invalid_function(), "invalid-function");
> report(psci_affinity_info_on(), "affinity-info-on");
> report(psci_affinity_info_off(), "affinity-info-off");
>
> - if (ERRATA(6c7a5dce22b3))
> + if (ERRATA(6c7a5dce22b3)){
> report(psci_cpu_on_test(), "cpu-on");
> - else
> + } else {
> report_skip("Skipping unsafe cpu-on test. Set ERRATA_6c7a5dce22b3=y to enable.");
> + }
The adition of braces here seems unnecessary. Is it by any chance a
leftover from the previous version of the patches, where they were
necessary?
Otherwise, the patches look good, also ran a few tests for good measure.
Thanks,
Alex
> + report(psci_cpu_off_test(), "cpu-off");
>
> done:
> #if 0
> --
> 2.25.1
>
