[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 10/10] arm/arm64: g
From: |
Auger Eric |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 10/10] arm/arm64: gic: don't just use zero |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:43:33 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 |
Hi Drew,
On 15/07/2016 15:00, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Allow user to select who sends ipis and with which irq,
> rather than just always sending irq=0 from cpu0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <address@hidden>
>
> ---
> v2: actually check that the irq received was the irq sent,
> and (for gicv2) that the sender is the expected one.
> ---
> arm/gic.c | 80
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index fc7ef241de3e2..d3ab97d4ae470 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2.
> */
> #include <libcflat.h>
> +#include <util.h>
> #include <asm/setup.h>
> #include <asm/processor.h>
> #include <asm/gic.h>
> @@ -33,6 +34,8 @@ static struct gic *gic;
> static int gic_version;
> static int acked[NR_CPUS], spurious[NR_CPUS];
> static cpumask_t ready;
> +static int sender;
> +static u32 irq;
>
> static void nr_cpu_check(int nr)
> {
> @@ -85,7 +88,16 @@ static void check_acked(cpumask_t *mask)
>
> static u32 gicv2_read_iar(void)
> {
> - return readl(gicv2_cpu_base() + GIC_CPU_INTACK);
> + u32 iar = readl(gicv2_cpu_base() + GIC_CPU_INTACK);
> + int src = (iar >> 10) & 7;
> +
> + if (src != sender) {
> + report("cpu%d received IPI from unexpected source cpu%d "
> + "(expected cpu%d)",
> + false, smp_processor_id(), src, sender);
> + }
> +
> + return iar & 0x3ff;
you can use GICC_IAR_INT_ID_MASK instead
> }
>
> static void gicv2_write_eoi(u32 irq)
> @@ -99,9 +111,15 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>
> if (iar != GICC_INT_SPURIOUS) {
> gic->write_eoi(iar);
> - smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in ipi_test functions */
> - ++acked[smp_processor_id()];
> - smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_acked */
> + if (iar == irq) {
> + smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in ipi_test functions */
> + ++acked[smp_processor_id()];
> + smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_acked */
> + } else {
> + report("cpu%d received unexpected irq %u "
> + "(expected %u)",
> + false, smp_processor_id(), iar, irq);
> + }
> } else {
> ++spurious[smp_processor_id()];
> smp_wmb();
> @@ -110,19 +128,19 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>
> static void gicv2_ipi_send_self(void)
> {
> - writel(2 << 24, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> + writel(2 << 24 | irq, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> }
>
> static void gicv2_ipi_send_tlist(cpumask_t *mask)
> {
> u8 tlist = (u8)cpumask_bits(mask)[0];
>
> - writel(tlist << 16, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> + writel(tlist << 16 | irq, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> }
>
> static void gicv2_ipi_send_broadcast(void)
> {
> - writel(1 << 24, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> + writel(1 << 24 | irq, gicv2_dist_base() + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
> }
>
> #define ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_1_SHIFT 16
> @@ -165,7 +183,7 @@ static void gicv3_ipi_send_tlist(cpumask_t *mask)
>
> sgi1r = (MPIDR_TO_SGI_AFFINITY(cluster_id, 3) |
> MPIDR_TO_SGI_AFFINITY(cluster_id, 2) |
> - /* irq << 24 | */
> + irq << 24 |
> MPIDR_TO_SGI_AFFINITY(cluster_id, 1) |
> tlist);
>
> @@ -187,7 +205,7 @@ static void gicv3_ipi_send_self(void)
>
> static void gicv3_ipi_send_broadcast(void)
> {
> - gicv3_write_sgi1r(1ULL << 40);
> + gicv3_write_sgi1r(1ULL << 40 | irq << 24);
> isb();
> }
>
> @@ -199,7 +217,7 @@ static void ipi_test_self(void)
> memset(acked, 0, sizeof(acked));
> smp_wmb();
> cpumask_clear(&mask);
> - cpumask_set_cpu(0, &mask);
> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
> gic->ipi.send_self();
> check_acked(&mask);
> report_prefix_pop();
> @@ -214,7 +232,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
> memset(acked, 0, sizeof(acked));
> smp_wmb();
> cpumask_copy(&mask, &cpu_present_mask);
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i += 2)
> + for (i = smp_processor_id() & 1; i < nr_cpus; i += 2)
> cpumask_clear_cpu(i, &mask);
> gic->ipi.send_tlist(&mask);
> check_acked(&mask);
> @@ -224,7 +242,7 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
> memset(acked, 0, sizeof(acked));
> smp_wmb();
> cpumask_copy(&mask, &cpu_present_mask);
> - cpumask_clear_cpu(0, &mask);
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
> gic->ipi.send_broadcast();
> check_acked(&mask);
> report_prefix_pop();
> @@ -241,6 +259,15 @@ static void ipi_enable(void)
> local_irq_enable();
> }
>
> +static void ipi_send(void)
> +{
> + ipi_enable();
> + wait_on_ready();
> + ipi_test_self();
> + ipi_test_smp();
> + exit(report_summary());
> +}
> +
> static void ipi_recv(void)
> {
> ipi_enable();
> @@ -300,19 +327,40 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> } else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "ipi")) {
> + int off, i = 1;
> + long val;
>
> report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> +
> + while (--argc != 1) {
> + off = parse_keyval(argv[++i], &val);
> + if (off == -1)
> + continue;
> + argv[i][off] = '\0';
> + if (strcmp(argv[i], "sender") == 0)
> + sender = val;
> + else if (strcmp(argv[i], "irq") == 0)
> + irq = val;
> + }
> +
> nr_cpu_check(2);
> ipi_enable();
>
> for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> if (cpu == 0)
> continue;
> - smp_boot_secondary(cpu, ipi_recv);
> + if (cpu == sender)
> + smp_boot_secondary(cpu, ipi_send);
> + else
> + smp_boot_secondary(cpu, ipi_recv);
> + }
> + if (sender == 0) {
> + wait_on_ready();
> + ipi_test_self();
> + ipi_test_smp();
> + } else {
> + ipi_recv();
> }
> - wait_on_ready();
> - ipi_test_self();
> - ipi_test_smp();
>
> smp_rmb();
> for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>
I ran the tests on both Cavium & Seattle HW without noticing issues.
I guess the file organization & infra will need to change while adding
some new tests, removing some globals ... but that's a good start to
show how to write new tests. I am a bit concerned by the LOCs and
redundancies with the kernel with possible out-of-sync macros but well I
think there is no other way.
I will spend some time writing some tests within the next weeks.
Thanks!
Eric
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 10/10] arm/arm64: gic: don't just use zero,
Auger Eric <=