Hi Maciej,
On 1/25/2024 3:13 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
> Add tests for both L2 and L3 CAT to verify the return values
> generated by writing non-contiguous CBMs don't contradict the
> reported non-contiguous support information.
>
> Use a logical XOR to confirm return value of write_schemata() and
> non-contiguous CBMs support information match.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changelog v3:
> - Roll back __cpuid_count part. (Reinette)
> - Update function name to read sparse_masks file.
> - Roll back get_cache_level() changes.
> - Add ksft_print_msg() to contiguous schemata write error handling
> (Reinette).
>
> Changelog v2:
> - Redo the patch message. (Ilpo)
> - Tidy up __cpuid_count calls. (Ilpo)
> - Remove redundant AND in noncont_mask calculations (Ilpo)
> - Fix bit_center offset.
> - Add newline before function return. (Ilpo)
> - Group non-contiguous tests with CAT tests. (Ilpo)
> - Use a helper for reading sparse_masks file. (Ilpo)
> - Make get_cache_level() available in other source files. (Ilpo)
>
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 2 +
> .../testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 2 +
> 3 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> index 39fc9303b8e8..9086bf359072 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> @@ -294,6 +294,71 @@ static int cat_run_test(const struct resctrl_test *test, const struct user_param
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int noncont_cat_run_test(const struct resctrl_test *test,
> + const struct user_params *uparams)
> +{
> + unsigned long full_cache_mask, cont_mask, noncont_mask;
> + unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx, ret, sparse_masks;
> + char schemata[64];
> + int bit_center;
> +
> + /* Check to compare sparse_masks content to CPUID output. */
> + ret = resource_info_unsigned_get(test->resource, "sparse_masks", &sparse_masks);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(test->resource, "L3"))
> + __cpuid_count(0x10, 1, eax, ebx, ecx, edx);
> + else if (!strcmp(test->resource, "L2"))
> + __cpuid_count(0x10, 2, eax, ebx, ecx, edx);
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (sparse_masks != ((ecx >> 3) & 1)) {
> + ksft_print_msg("CPUID output doesn't match 'sparse_masks' file content!\n");
> + return -1;
If I understand correctly this falls into the "test failure" [1] category
and should return 1? ...
> + }
> +
> + /* Write checks initialization. */
> + ret = get_full_cbm(test->resource, &full_cache_mask);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + bit_center = count_bits(full_cache_mask) / 2;
> + cont_mask = full_cache_mask >> bit_center;
> +
> + /* Contiguous mask write check. */
> + snprintf(schemata, sizeof(schemata), "%lx", cont_mask);
> + ret = write_schemata("", schemata, uparams->cpu, test->resource);
> + if (ret) {
> + ksft_print_msg("Write of contiguous CBM failed\n");
> + return ret;
... although here I think the goal to distinguish between test error and test failure
falls apart since it is not possible to tell within the test if the failure is
because of error in the test or if test failed.
Reinette
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/33787043-5823-6de4-4e5c-a24a136ba541@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
