On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, Aaron Lewis wrote:
> Add XFEATURE masks to processor.h to make them more broadly available
> in KVM selftests.
>
> Use the names from the kernel's fpu/types.h for consistency, i.e.
> rename XTILECFG and XTILEDATA to XTILE_CFG and XTILE_DATA respectively.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h | 17 ++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c | 22 +++++++------------
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h
> index 62dc54c8e0c4..ebe83cfe521c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h
> @@ -48,6 +48,23 @@ extern bool host_cpu_is_amd;
> #define X86_CR4_SMAP (1ul << 21)
> #define X86_CR4_PKE (1ul << 22)
>
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_FP BIT_ULL(0)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_SSE BIT_ULL(1)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_YMM BIT_ULL(2)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_BNDREGS BIT_ULL(3)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_BNDCSR BIT_ULL(4)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_OPMASK BIT_ULL(5)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_ZMM_Hi256 BIT_ULL(6)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_Hi16_ZMM BIT_ULL(7)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_CFG BIT_ULL(17)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA BIT_ULL(18)
> +
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_AVX512 (XFEATURE_MASK_OPMASK | \
> + XFEATURE_MASK_ZMM_Hi256 | \
> + XFEATURE_MASK_Hi16_ZMM)
> +#define XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE (XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA | \
> + XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_CFG)
> +
> /* Note, these are ordered alphabetically to match kvm_cpuid_entry2. Eww. */
> enum cpuid_output_regs {
> KVM_CPUID_EAX,
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c
> index 4b733ad21831..14a7656620d5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c
> @@ -33,12 +33,6 @@
> #define MAX_TILES 16
> #define RESERVED_BYTES 14
>
> -#define XFEATURE_XTILECFG 17
> -#define XFEATURE_XTILEDATA 18
> -#define XFEATURE_MASK_XTILECFG (1 << XFEATURE_XTILECFG)
> -#define XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA (1 << XFEATURE_XTILEDATA)
> -#define XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE (XFEATURE_MASK_XTILECFG | XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA)
> -
> #define XSAVE_HDR_OFFSET 512
>
> struct xsave_data {
> @@ -187,14 +181,14 @@ static void __attribute__((__flatten__)) guest_code(struct tile_config *amx_cfg,
> __tilerelease();
> GUEST_SYNC(5);
> /* bit 18 not in the XCOMP_BV after xsavec() */
> - set_xstatebv(xsave_data, XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> - __xsavec(xsave_data, XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> - GUEST_ASSERT((get_xstatebv(xsave_data) & XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA) == 0);
> + set_xstatebv(xsave_data, XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> + __xsavec(xsave_data, XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> + GUEST_ASSERT((get_xstatebv(xsave_data) & XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA) == 0);
>
> /* xfd=0x40000, disable amx tiledata */
> - wrmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD, XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> + wrmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD, XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> GUEST_SYNC(6);
> - GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> + GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> set_tilecfg(amx_cfg);
> __ldtilecfg(amx_cfg);
> /* Trigger #NM exception */
> @@ -206,11 +200,11 @@ static void __attribute__((__flatten__)) guest_code(struct tile_config *amx_cfg,
>
> void guest_nm_handler(struct ex_regs *regs)
> {
> - /* Check if #NM is triggered by XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA */
> + /* Check if #NM is triggered by XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA */
> GUEST_SYNC(7);
> - GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> + GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> GUEST_SYNC(8);
> - GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> + GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> /* Clear xfd_err */
> wrmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR, 0);
> /* xfd=0, enable amx */
> --
> 2.39.2.637.g21b0678d19-goog
>
Can I take your commit into my series? This seems to be closely related
with amx_test itself without much relationship with the xcr0 test.
Thoughts?
