Hi Drew,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 07:48:21PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:49:12PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > From: Nikita Venkatesh <Nikita.Venkatesh@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nikita Venkatesh <Nikita.Venkatesh@xxxxxxx>
> > [ Alex E: Skip CPU_OFF test if CPU_ON failed ]
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arm/psci.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arm/psci.c b/arm/psci.c
> > index e96be941953b..d045616bfcd4 100644
> > --- a/arm/psci.c
> > +++ b/arm/psci.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
> > #include <asm/psci.h>
> > #include <asm/smp.h>
> >
> > +#define CPU_OFF_TEST_WAIT_TIME 1000
> > +
> > static bool invalid_function_exception;
> >
> > #ifdef __arm__
> > @@ -71,8 +73,10 @@ 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_do_wake_target(void)
> > @@ -94,6 +98,20 @@ 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;
> > @@ -162,9 +180,45 @@ out:
> > 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);
>
> Since we're setting cpu_off_done for cpu0, then we could also set
> cpu_off_success[0] = true and not have to skip it in the check loop
> below.
I would prefer not to, since CPU 0 never invokes CPU_OFF for itself and setting
cpu_off_success to true for CPU 0 might get confusing. Unless you insist :)
>
> > +
> > + report_info("starting CPU_OFF test...");
> > +
> > + cpu_off_start = 1;
> > + while (!cpumask_full(&cpu_off_done))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > +
> > + /* Allow all the other CPUs to complete the operation */
> > + mdelay(CPU_OFF_TEST_WAIT_TIME);
>
> Don't really need the define, just the numbers work for stuff
> like this, but OK.
I'll get rid of the define.
You ok with waiting for 1 second for each test run? I remember you had
objections when I added a similar delay to the timer tests.
>
> > +
> > + 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);
> > + bool cpu_on_success = true;
> >
> > report_prefix_push("psci");
> >
> > @@ -179,10 +233,17 @@ int main(void)
> > report(psci_affinity_info_on(), "affinity-info-on");
> > report(psci_affinity_info_off(), "affinity-info-off");
> >
> > - if (ERRATA(6c7a5dce22b3))
> > - report(psci_cpu_on_test(), "cpu-on");
> > - else
> > + if (ERRATA(6c7a5dce22b3)) {
> > + cpu_on_success = psci_cpu_on_test();
> > + report(cpu_on_success, "cpu-on");
> > + } else {
> > report_skip("Skipping unsafe cpu-on test. Set ERRATA_6c7a5dce22b3=y to enable.");
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!cpu_on_success)
> > + report_skip("Skipping cpu-off test because the cpu-on test failed");
> > + else
> > + report(psci_cpu_off_test(), "cpu-off");
> >
> > done:
> > #if 0
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> Besides the nits,
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
Alex
>
> Thanks,
> drew
