On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:35:35AM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> 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 :)
I don't insist, I'm just looking for consistency with the other tests. The
last one was getting changed to the opposite, but now I see you plan to
change it back.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + 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.
Thanks for reminding me :-) Indeed, I'd rather not have tests waiting for
no reason. We want these tests to execute as fast as possible to ensure
they get run by impatient developers like me.
How about something like this that waits *up to* one second.
static void cpu_off_secondary_entry(void *data)
{
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
while (!cpu_off_start)
cpu_relax();
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_off_done);
cpu_psci_cpu_die();
}
static bool psci_cpu_off_test(void)
{
int count;
...
while (!cpumask_full(&cpu_off_done))
cpu_relax();
for (i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
mdelay(10);
count = 0;
for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
if (cpu == 0)
continue;
if (psci_affinity_info(cpu, 0) != PSCI_0_2_AFFINITY_LEVEL_OFF)
++count;
}
if (!count)
break;
}
if (count) {
...
}
...
}
Thanks,
drew
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + 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
