Hi Ricardo,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:18 PM Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> PMUv3p5 adds a knob, PMCR_EL0.LP == 1, that allows overflowing at 64-bits
> instead of 32. Prepare by doing these 3 things:
>
> 1. Add a "bool overflow_at_64bits" argument to all tests checking
> overflows.
> 2. Extend satisfy_prerequisites() to check if the machine supports
> "overflow_at_64bits".
> 3. Refactor the test invocations to use the new "run_test()" which adds a
> report prefix indicating whether the test uses 64 or 32-bit overflows.
>
> A subsequent commit will actually add the 64-bit overflow tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arm/pmu.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
> index 7f0794d..0d06b59 100644
> --- a/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -164,13 +164,13 @@ static void pmu_reset(void)
> /* event counter tests only implemented for aarch64 */
> static void test_event_introspection(void) {}
> static void test_event_counter_config(void) {}
> -static void test_basic_event_count(void) {}
> -static void test_mem_access(void) {}
> -static void test_sw_incr(void) {}
> -static void test_chained_counters(void) {}
> -static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) {}
> -static void test_chain_promotion(void) {}
> -static void test_overflow_interrupt(void) {}
> +static void test_basic_event_count(bool overflow_at_64bits) {}
> +static void test_mem_access(bool overflow_at_64bits) {}
> +static void test_sw_incr(bool overflow_at_64bits) {}
> +static void test_chained_counters(bool unused) {}
> +static void test_chained_sw_incr(bool unused) {}
> +static void test_chain_promotion(bool unused) {}
> +static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool overflow_at_64bits) {}
>
> #elif defined(__aarch64__)
> #define ID_AA64DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT 8
> @@ -416,6 +416,7 @@ static bool satisfy_prerequisites(uint32_t *events, unsigned int nb_events)
> return false;
> }
> }
> +
Nit: Unnecessary addition of the line.
> return true;
> }
>
> @@ -435,13 +436,24 @@ static uint64_t pmevcntr_mask(void)
> return (uint32_t)~0;
> }
>
> -static void test_basic_event_count(void)
> +static bool check_overflow_prerequisites(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> +{
> + if (overflow_at_64bits && pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) {
> + report_skip("Skip test as 64 overflows need FEAT_PMUv3p5");
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_basic_event_count(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> {
> uint32_t implemented_counter_mask, non_implemented_counter_mask;
> uint32_t counter_mask;
> uint32_t events[] = {CPU_CYCLES, INST_RETIRED};
>
> - if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)))
> + if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)) ||
> + !check_overflow_prerequisites(overflow_at_64bits))
> return;
>
> implemented_counter_mask = BIT(pmu.nb_implemented_counters) - 1;
> @@ -515,12 +527,13 @@ static void test_basic_event_count(void)
> "check overflow happened on #0 only");
> }
>
> -static void test_mem_access(void)
> +static void test_mem_access(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> {
> void *addr = malloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> uint32_t events[] = {MEM_ACCESS, MEM_ACCESS};
>
> - if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)))
> + if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)) ||
> + !check_overflow_prerequisites(overflow_at_64bits))
> return;
>
> pmu_reset();
> @@ -551,13 +564,14 @@ static void test_mem_access(void)
> read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0));
> }
>
> -static void test_sw_incr(void)
> +static void test_sw_incr(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> {
> uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, SW_INCR};
> uint64_t cntr0 = (PRE_OVERFLOW + 100) & pmevcntr_mask();
> int i;
>
> - if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)))
> + if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)) ||
> + !check_overflow_prerequisites(overflow_at_64bits))
> return;
>
> pmu_reset();
> @@ -597,7 +611,7 @@ static void test_sw_incr(void)
> "overflow on counter #0 after 100 SW_INCR");
> }
>
> -static void test_chained_counters(void)
> +static void test_chained_counters(bool unused)
> {
> uint32_t events[] = {CPU_CYCLES, CHAIN};
>
> @@ -638,7 +652,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void)
> report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters");
> }
>
> -static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
> +static void test_chained_sw_incr(bool unused)
> {
> uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, CHAIN};
> uint64_t cntr0 = (PRE_OVERFLOW + 100) & pmevcntr_mask();
> @@ -691,7 +705,7 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
> read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1));
> }
>
> -static void test_chain_promotion(void)
> +static void test_chain_promotion(bool unused)
> {
> uint32_t events[] = {MEM_ACCESS, CHAIN};
> void *addr = malloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> @@ -840,13 +854,14 @@ static bool expect_interrupts(uint32_t bitmap)
> return true;
> }
>
> -static void test_overflow_interrupt(void)
> +static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> {
> uint32_t events[] = {MEM_ACCESS, SW_INCR};
> void *addr = malloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> int i;
>
> - if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)))
> + if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)) ||
> + !check_overflow_prerequisites(overflow_at_64bits))
> return;
>
> gic_enable_defaults();
> @@ -1070,6 +1085,19 @@ static bool pmu_probe(void)
> return true;
> }
>
> +static void run_test(char *name, void (*test)(bool), bool overflow_at_64bits)
> +{
> + const char *prefix = overflow_at_64bits ? "64-bit overflows" : "32-bit overflows";
> +
> + report_prefix_push(name);
> + report_prefix_push(prefix);
> +
> + test(overflow_at_64bits);
> +
> + report_prefix_pop();
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int cpi = 0;
> @@ -1102,33 +1130,19 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> test_event_counter_config();
> report_prefix_pop();
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-basic-event-count") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_basic_event_count();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_basic_event_count, false);
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-mem-access") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_mem_access();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_mem_access, false);
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-sw-incr") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_sw_incr();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_sw_incr, false);
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-chained-counters") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_chained_counters();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_chained_counters, false);
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-chained-sw-incr") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_chained_sw_incr();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_chained_sw_incr, false);
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-chain-promotion") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_chain_promotion();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_chain_promotion, false);
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-overflow-interrupt") == 0) {
> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> - test_overflow_interrupt();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> + run_test(argv[1], test_overflow_interrupt, false);
> } else {
> report_abort("Unknown sub-test '%s'", argv[1]);
> }
Perhaps it might be useful to generalize run_test() a bit more so that it
can be used for other existing test cases as well ?
(e.g. "pmu-event-counter-config", etc)
---
i.e (The following are not all of the changes though).
-static void run_test(char *name, void (*test)(bool), bool overflow_at_64bits)
+static void run_test(const char *name, const char *prefix, void
(*test)(bool), void *arg)
{
- const char *prefix = overflow_at_64bits ? "64-bit overflows" :
"32-bit overflows";
-
report_prefix_push(name);
report_prefix_push(prefix);
- test(overflow_at_64bits);
+ test(arg);
report_prefix_pop();
report_prefix_pop();
}
+static void run_event_test(char *name, void (*test)(bool), bool
overflow_at_64bits)
+{
+ const char *prefix = overflow_at_64bits ? "64-bit overflows" :
"32-bit overflows";
+
+ run_test(name, prefix, test, (void *)overflow_at_64bits);
+}
---
Having said that, the patch already improves the code,
and I don't see any issue.
Reviewed-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you,
Reiji
