> As part of the enumeration interface for setting vector lengths it is valid
> to set vector lengths not supported in the system, these will be rounded to
> a supported vector length and returned from the prctl(). Add a test which
> exercises this for every valid vector length and makes sure that the return
> value is as expected and that this is reflected in the actual system state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 76
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> index 9d6ac843e651..61e9704e03fe 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,81 @@ static void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data)
> file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl);
> }
>
> +/* For each VQ verify that setting via prctl() does the right thing */
> +static void prctl_set_all_vqs(struct vec_data *data)
> +{
> + int ret, vq, vl, new_vl;
> + int errors = 0;
> +
> + for (vq = SVE_VQ_MIN; vq <= SVE_VQ_MAX; vq++) {
> + vl = sve_vl_from_vq(vq);
> +
> + /* Attempt to set the VL */
> + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, vl);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + errors++;
> + ksft_print_msg("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d
> (%s)\n",
> + data->name, vl,
> + errno, strerror(errno));
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + new_vl = ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK;
> +
> + /* Check that we actually have the reported new VL */
> + if (data->rdvl() != new_vl) {
> + ksft_print_msg("Set %s VL %d but RDVL
> reports %d\n",
> + data->name, new_vl, data->rdvl());
> + errors++;
> + }
> +
> + /* Was that the VL we asked for? */
> + if (new_vl == vl)
> + continue;
> +
> + /* Should round up to the minimum VL if below it */
> + if (vl < data->min_vl) {
> + if (new_vl != data->min_vl) {
> + ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not
> minimum %d\n",
> + data->name, vl, new_vl,
> + data->min_vl);
> + errors++;
> + }
> +
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /* Should round down to maximum VL if above it */
> + if (vl > data->max_vl) {
> + if (new_vl != data->max_vl) {
> + ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d not
> maximum %d\n",
> + data->name, vl, new_vl,
> + data->max_vl);
> + errors++;
> + }
> +
> + continue;
> + }
> +
Hello,
Since (new_vl < vl) is expected here:
> + /* Otherwise we should've rounded down */
> + if (!(new_vl < vl)) {
> + ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d, did not round
> down\n",
> + data->name, vl, new_vl);
> + errors++;
> +
> + continue;
> + }
I think following two lines should be removed:
> +
> + /* We should've hit one of the other cases... */
> + ksft_print_msg("%s VL %d returned %d test logic failure\n",
> + data->name, vl, new_vl);
> + errors++;
Actually I tried to run these sve tests update on A64FX and got the above error:
# # SVE VL 48 returned 32 test logic failure
but returning 32 is expected behavior as A64FX's supported VL lens are 16, 32, 64.
Thanks,
Misono
> + }
> +
> + ksft_test_result(errors == 0, "%s prctl() set all VLs, %d errors\n",
> + data->name, errors);
> +}
> +
> typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *);
>
> static const test_type tests[] = {
> @@ -557,6 +632,7 @@ static const test_type tests[] = {
> prctl_set_no_child,
> prctl_set_for_child,
> prctl_set_onexec,
> + prctl_set_all_vqs,
> };
>
> int main(void)
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
