Hi drew,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:18 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 04:36:35PM +0800, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > Add test for Zicbom and its block size into CBO tests, when
> > Zicbom is present, test that cbo.clean/flush may be issued and works.
> > As the software can't verify the clean/flush functions, we just judged
> > that cbo.clean/flush isn't executed illegally.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c
> > index a40541bb7c7d..b63e23f95e08 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c
> > @@ -81,6 +81,30 @@ static bool is_power_of_2(__u64 n)
> > return n != 0 && (n & (n - 1)) == 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void test_zicbom(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct riscv_hwprobe pair = {
> > + .key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOM_BLOCK_SIZE,
> > + };
> > + cpu_set_t *cpus = (cpu_set_t *)arg;
> > + __u64 block_size;
> > + long rc;
> > +
> > + rc = riscv_hwprobe(&pair, 1, sizeof(cpu_set_t), (unsigned long *)cpus, 0);
> > + block_size = pair.value;
> > + ksft_test_result(rc == 0 && pair.key == RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOM_BLOCK_SIZE &&
> > + is_power_of_2(block_size), "Zicbom block size\n");
> > + ksft_print_msg("Zicbom block size: %llu\n", block_size);
> > +
> > + illegal_insn = false;
> > + cbo_clean(&mem[block_size]);
> > + ksft_test_result(!illegal_insn, "cbo.clean\n");
> > +
> > + illegal_insn = false;
> > + cbo_flush(&mem[block_size]);
> > + ksft_test_result(!illegal_insn, "cbo.flush\n");
> > +}
> > +
> > static void test_zicboz(void *arg)
> > {
> > struct riscv_hwprobe pair = {
> > @@ -129,7 +153,7 @@ static void test_zicboz(void *arg)
> > ksft_test_result_pass("cbo.zero check\n");
> > }
> >
> > -static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus)
> > +static void check_no_zicbo_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus, __u64 cbo)
> > {
> > struct riscv_hwprobe pair = {
> > .key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0,
> > @@ -137,6 +161,7 @@ static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus)
> > cpu_set_t one_cpu;
> > int i = 0, c = 0;
> > long rc;
> > + char *cbostr;
> >
> > while (i++ < CPU_COUNT(cpus)) {
> > while (!CPU_ISSET(c, cpus))
> > @@ -148,10 +173,13 @@ static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus)
> > rc = riscv_hwprobe(&pair, 1, sizeof(cpu_set_t), (unsigned long *)&one_cpu, 0);
> > assert(rc == 0 && pair.key == RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0);
> >
> > - if (pair.value & RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ)
> > - ksft_exit_fail_msg("Zicboz is only present on a subset of harts.\n"
> > - "Use taskset to select a set of harts where Zicboz\n"
> > - "presence (present or not) is consistent for each hart\n");
> > + cbostr = cbo == RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ ? "Zicboz" : "Zicbom";
> > +
> > + if (pair.value & cbo)
> > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s is only present on a subset of harts.\n"
> > + "Use taskset to select a set of harts where %s\n"
> > + "presence (present or not) is consistent for each hart\n",
> > + cbostr, cbostr);
> > ++c;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -159,6 +187,7 @@ static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus)
> > enum {
> > TEST_ZICBOZ,
> > TEST_NO_ZICBOZ,
> > + TEST_ZICBOM,
> > TEST_NO_ZICBOM,
> > };
> >
> > @@ -169,6 +198,7 @@ static struct test_info {
> > } tests[] = {
> > [TEST_ZICBOZ] = { .nr_tests = 3, test_zicboz },
> > [TEST_NO_ZICBOZ] = { .nr_tests = 1, test_no_zicboz },
> > + [TEST_ZICBOM] = { .nr_tests = 3, test_zicbom },
> > [TEST_NO_ZICBOM] = { .nr_tests = 3, test_no_zicbom },
> > };
> >
> > @@ -206,7 +236,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > tests[TEST_ZICBOZ].enabled = true;
> > tests[TEST_NO_ZICBOZ].enabled = false;
> > } else {
> > - check_no_zicboz_cpus(&cpus);
> > + check_no_zicbo_cpus(&cpus, RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (pair.value & RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOM) {
> > + tests[TEST_ZICBOM].enabled = true;
> > + tests[TEST_NO_ZICBOM].enabled = false;
> > + } else {
> > + check_no_zicbo_cpus(&cpus, RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOM);
> > }
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); ++i)
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
>
> The test_no_zicbom() test needs to have the illegal instruction SIGILL
> test for cbo.inval moved out into its own test. So, even when we have
> zicbom we still test that cbo.inval generates a SIGILL.
Do you mean moving cbo_inval() into test_zicbom()? Then does
cbo_inval(&mem[0]) also need to be tested in test_no_zicbom()?
> Thanks,
> drew
Thanks,
Yunhui
