On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:54:09PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> Triggers LPIs through the INT command.
>
> the test checks the LPI hits the right CPU and triggers
> the right LPI intid, ie. the translation is correct.
>
> Updates to the config table also are tested, along with inv
> and invall commands.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
> ---
> arm/gic.c | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arm/unittests.cfg | 6 ++
> lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h | 14 ++++
> 3 files changed, 194 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index 3597ac3..7f701a1 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static struct gic *gic;
> static int acked[NR_CPUS], spurious[NR_CPUS];
> static int bad_sender[NR_CPUS], bad_irq[NR_CPUS];
> static cpumask_t ready;
> +static struct its_stats lpi_stats;
>
> static void nr_cpu_check(int nr)
> {
> @@ -158,6 +159,54 @@ static void ipi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
> }
> }
>
> +static void lpi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
> +{
> + u32 irqstat = gic_read_iar();
> + int irqnr = gic_iar_irqnr(irqstat);
> +
> + gic_write_eoir(irqstat);
> + if (irqnr < 8192)
> + report(false, "Unexpected non LPI interrupt received");
> + smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_stats_expect */
> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id = smp_processor_id();
> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id = irqnr;
> + smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_lpi_stats */
> +}
> +
> +static void lpi_stats_expect(int exp_cpu_id, int exp_lpi_id)
> +{
> + lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id = exp_cpu_id;
> + lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id = exp_lpi_id;
> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id = -1;
> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id = -1;
> + smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in handler */
> +}
> +
> +static void check_lpi_stats(void)
> +{
> + mdelay(100);
> + smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in lpi_handler */
> + if ((lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id != lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id) ||
> + (lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id != lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id)) {
> + if (lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id == -1 &&
> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id == -1) {
> + report(false,
> + "No LPI received whereas (cpuid=%d, intid=%d) "
> + "was expected", lpi_stats.expected.cpu_id,
> + lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id);
> + } else {
> + report(false, "Unexpected LPI (cpuid=%d, intid=%d)",
> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id,
> + lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id);
> + }
> + } else if (lpi_stats.expected.lpi_id != -1) {
> + report(true, "LPI %d on CPU %d", lpi_stats.observed.lpi_id,
> + lpi_stats.observed.cpu_id);
> + } else {
> + report(true, "no LPI received, as expected");
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void gicv2_ipi_send_self(void)
> {
> writel(2 << 24 | IPI_IRQ, gicv2_dist_base() + GICD_SGIR);
> @@ -241,6 +290,14 @@ static void ipi_test(void *data __unused)
> ipi_recv();
> }
>
> +static void secondary_lpi_test(void)
> +{
> + setup_irq(lpi_handler);
> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &ready);
> + while (1)
> + wfi();
> +}
> +
> static struct gic gicv2 = {
> .ipi = {
> .send_self = gicv2_ipi_send_self,
> @@ -551,6 +608,120 @@ static void test_its_baser(void)
> report_info("collection baser entry_size = 0x%x", coll_baser->esz);
> }
>
> +static int its_prerequisites(int nb_cpus)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!gicv3_its_base()) {
> + report_skip("No ITS, skip ...");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + if (nr_cpus < 4) {
> + report_skip("Test requires at least %d vcpus", nb_cpus);
> + return -1;
We have nr_cpu_check() in arm/gic.c that does a report_abort for this
case. Is there a reason to do report_skip instead of report_abort?
Also do you plan to return more than 0 - success, -1 - failure? If not,
then this could be a bool function.
> + }
> +
> + stats_reset();
> +
> + setup_irq(lpi_handler);
> +
> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == 0)
> + continue;
> + smp_boot_secondary(cpu, secondary_lpi_test);
> + }
> + wait_on_ready();
> +
> + its_enable_defaults();
> +
> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_its_trigger(void)
> +{
> + struct its_collection *col3, *col2;
> + struct its_device *dev2, *dev7;
> +
> + if (its_prerequisites(4))
> + return;
> +
> + dev2 = its_create_device(2 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */);
> + dev7 = its_create_device(7 /* dev id */, 8 /* nb_ites */);
> +
> + col3 = its_create_collection(3 /* col id */, 3/* target PE */);
> + col2 = its_create_collection(2 /* col id */, 2/* target PE */);
> +
> + set_lpi_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
> + set_lpi_config(8196, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
> +
> + its_send_invall(col2);
> + its_send_invall(col3);
> +
> + report_prefix_push("int");
> +
> + its_send_mapd(dev2, true);
> + its_send_mapd(dev7, true);
> +
> + its_send_mapc(col3, true);
> + its_send_mapc(col2, true);
> +
> + its_send_mapti(dev2, 8195 /* lpi id */,
> + 20 /* event id */, col3);
> + its_send_mapti(dev7, 8196 /* lpi id */,
> + 255 /* event id */, col2);
> +
> + lpi_stats_expect(3, 8195);
> + its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> +
> + lpi_stats_expect(2, 8196);
> + its_send_int(dev7, 255);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> +
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +
> + report_prefix_push("inv/invall");
> +
> + /* disable 8195 */
> + set_lpi_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT & ~0x1);
> + its_send_inv(dev2, 20);
> +
> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> + its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> +
> + set_lpi_config(8195, LPI_PROP_DEFAULT);
> + /* willingly forget the INVALL*/
> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> + its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> +
> + its_send_invall(col3);
> + lpi_stats_expect(3, 8195);
> + its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> +
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +
> + report_prefix_push("mapd valid=false");
> + its_send_mapd(dev2, false);
> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> + its_send_int(dev2, 20);
> + check_lpi_stats();
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +
> + report_prefix_push("mapc valid=false");
> + its_send_mapc(col2, false);
> + lpi_stats_expect(-1, -1);
> + its_send_int(dev7, 255);
> + check_lpi_stats();
Missing prefix pop here
> +}
> +
> +
Extra blank line
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> if (!gic_init()) {
> @@ -581,6 +752,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "mmio") == 0) {
> report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> gic_test_mmio();
> + } else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "its-trigger")) {
> + report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> + test_its_trigger();
> report_prefix_pop();
You stole the report_prefix_pop from the mmio tests above.
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "its-introspection") == 0) {
> report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
> diff --git a/arm/unittests.cfg b/arm/unittests.cfg
> index 2234a0f..80a1d27 100644
> --- a/arm/unittests.cfg
> +++ b/arm/unittests.cfg
> @@ -134,6 +134,12 @@ smp = $MAX_SMP
> extra_params = -machine gic-version=3 -append 'its-baser'
> groups = its
>
> +[its-trigger]
> +file = gic.flat
> +smp = $MAX_SMP
> +extra_params = -machine gic-version=3 -append 'its-trigger'
> +groups = its
> +
> # Test PSCI emulation
> [psci]
> file = psci.flat
> diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h b/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h
> index 463174f..7d6f8fd 100644
> --- a/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h
> +++ b/lib/arm/asm/gic-v3-its.h
> @@ -123,6 +123,16 @@ struct its_data {
> u32 nr_collections; /* Allocated Collections */
> };
>
> +struct its_event {
> + int cpu_id;
> + int lpi_id;
> +};
> +
> +struct its_stats {
> + struct its_event expected;
> + struct its_event observed;
> +};
These structures belong in arm/gic.c as they are unit test structions and
driver structures.
> +
> extern struct its_data its_data;
>
> #define gicv3_its_base() (its_data.base)
> @@ -139,6 +149,10 @@ extern void gicv3_rdist_ctrl_lpi(u32 redist, bool set);
> extern void its_enable_defaults(void);
> extern struct its_device *its_create_device(u32 dev_id, int nr_ites);
> extern struct its_collection *its_create_collection(u32 col_id, u32
> target_pe);
> +extern struct its_collection *its_create_collection(u32 col_id, u32 target);
Extra definition of its_create_collection?
> +
> +extern void set_lpi_config(int n, u8 val);
Please rename: lpi_set_config
> +extern u8 get_lpi_config(int n);
get_lpi_config doesn't seem to exist.
>
> extern void its_send_mapd(struct its_device *dev, int valid);
> extern void its_send_mapc(struct its_collection *col, int valid);
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Thanks,
drew
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
