On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 5:02 PM Bibo Mao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2026/6/9 下午4:40, Huacai Chen wrote: > > Hi, Bibo, > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 3:27 PM Bibo Mao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Add FPU test case and verify FPU register get and set APIs, the > >> FPU width supports 64/128/256 bits. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 + > >> .../kvm/include/loongarch/processor.h | 8 + > >> .../selftests/kvm/loongarch/fpu_test.c | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> 3 files changed, 154 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/loongarch/fpu_test.c > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > >> b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > >> index 9118a5a51b89..7d11592b3759 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > >> @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_riscv += rseq_test > >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_riscv += steal_time > >> > >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_loongarch = loongarch/pmu_test > >> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_loongarch += loongarch/fpu_test > >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_loongarch += arch_timer > >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_loongarch += coalesced_io_test > >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_loongarch += demand_paging_test > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/processor.h > >> b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/processor.h > >> index 2324e311180f..981ae7078354 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/processor.h > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/loongarch/processor.h > >> @@ -82,6 +82,14 @@ > >> #define PLV_MASK 0x3 > >> #define LOONGARCH_CSR_PRMD 0x1 > >> #define LOONGARCH_CSR_EUEN 0x2 > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_LBTEN_SHIFT 3 > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_LBTEN > >> BIT_ULL(CSR_EUEN_LBTEN_SHIFT) > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_LASXEN_SHIFT 2 > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_LASXEN BIT_ULL(CSR_EUEN_LASXEN_SHIFT) > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_LSXEN_SHIFT 1 > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_LSXEN > >> BIT_ULL(CSR_EUEN_LSXEN_SHIFT) > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_FPEN_SHIFT 0 > >> +#define CSR_EUEN_FPEN BIT_ULL(CSR_EUEN_FPEN_SHIFT) > >> #define LOONGARCH_CSR_ECFG 0x4 > >> #define ECFGB_PMU 10 > >> #define ECFGF_PMU (BIT_ULL(ECFGB_PMU)) > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/loongarch/fpu_test.c > >> b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/loongarch/fpu_test.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 000000000000..5bccce9db5d0 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/loongarch/fpu_test.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > >> + > >> +#include <stdio.h> > >> +#include <string.h> > >> +#include "kvm_util.h" > >> +#include "processor.h" > >> +#include "loongarch/processor.h" > >> + > >> +struct kvm_fpureg __aligned(64) vector = {{1, 2, 3, 4 }}; > >> + > >> +static void guest_code(void) > >> +{ > >> + unsigned long val; > >> + struct kvm_fpureg *fp = &vector; > >> + > >> + val = csr_read(LOONGARCH_CSR_EUEN); > >> + val |= CSR_EUEN_FPEN | CSR_EUEN_LSXEN | CSR_EUEN_LASXEN; > >> + csr_write(val, LOONGARCH_CSR_EUEN); > >> + > >> + __asm__ __volatile__("fld.d $f0, %0, 0\n" : : "r"(fp) : "$f0"); > >> + GUEST_SYNC(0); > >> + > >> + __asm__ __volatile__("vld $vr0, %0, 0\n" : : "r"(fp) : "$vr0"); > >> + GUEST_SYNC(1); > >> + > >> + __asm__ __volatile__("xvld $xr0, %0, 0\n" : : "r"(fp) : "$xr0"); > >> + GUEST_SYNC(2); > >> + > >> + __asm__ __volatile__("fst.d $f0, %0, 0\n" : : "r"(fp) : "memory"); > >> + GUEST_SYNC(3); > >> + > >> + __asm__ __volatile__("vst $vr0, %0, 0\n" : : "r"(fp) : "memory"); > >> + GUEST_SYNC(4); > >> + > >> + __asm__ __volatile__("xvst $xr0, %0, 0\n" : : "r"(fp) : "memory"); > >> + GUEST_SYNC(5); > >> + > >> + GUEST_DONE(); > >> +} > >> + > >> +static void run_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > >> +{ > >> + struct ucall uc; > >> + int cont; > >> + > >> + cont = 1; > >> + while (cont) { > >> + vcpu_run(vcpu); > >> + > >> + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { > >> + case UCALL_PRINTF: > >> + printf("%s", (const char *)uc.buffer); > >> + break; > >> + case UCALL_DONE: > >> + printf("FPU test PASSED\n"); > >> + fallthrough; > >> + case UCALL_SYNC: > >> + cont = 0; > >> + break; > >> + case UCALL_ABORT: > >> + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc); > >> + default: > >> + TEST_ASSERT(false, "Unexpected exit: %s", > >> + exit_reason_str(vcpu->run->exit_reason)); > >> + } > >> + } > >> +} > >> + > >> +static bool __vm_has_feature(struct kvm_vm *vm, int feature) > >> +{ > >> + int ret; > >> + > >> + ret = __kvm_has_device_attr(vm->fd, KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_CTRL, > >> feature); > >> + return !ret; > >> +} > >> + > >> + > >> +int main(void) > >> +{ > >> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > >> + struct kvm_vm *vm; > >> + struct kvm_fpu fpu; > >> + struct kvm_fpureg *fp = &vector; > >> + > >> + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code); > >> + __TEST_REQUIRE(__vm_has_feature(vm, KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_LSX), > >> + "LSX not available, skipping test\n"); > >> + __TEST_REQUIRE(__vm_has_feature(vm, KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_LASX), > >> + "LASX not available, skipping test\n"); > > Directly use __kvm_has_device_attr() as the first patch, or use > > __vm_has_feature() in the first patch? > do you mean something like this? > ret = __kvm_has_device_attr(vm->fd, KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_CTRL, > KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_LSX); > __TEST_REQUIRE(!ret, "LSX not available, skipping test\n"); > ret = __kvm_has_device_attr(vm->fd, KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_CTRL, > KVM_LOONGARCH_VM_FEAT_LASX); > __TEST_REQUIRE(!ret, "LASX not available, skipping test\n"); Yes, I think this is a little better, it removes the inconsistency between two patch.
Huacai > > I am ok with both. > > > > BTW, I don't think the __ prefix is necessary. > There seem no unified rules with kvm selftest cases, I have no idea > about this actually. There are __kvm_has_device_attr/__TEST_REQUIRE > public APIs and real usages. > > Regards > Bibo Mao > > > > Huacai > > > >> + > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + vcpu_fpu_get(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(fpu.fpr, fp, 8), "Wanted 0x%llx from f0, got > >> 0x%llx", > >> + fp->val64[0], fpu.fpr[0].val64[0]); > >> + > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + vcpu_fpu_get(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(fpu.fpr, fp, 16), "Wanted 0x%llx %llx from > >> vr0, got 0x%llx %llx", > >> + fp->val64[0], fp->val64[1], > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0], fpu.fpr[0].val64[1]); > >> + > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + vcpu_fpu_get(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(fpu.fpr, fp, 32), > >> + "Wanted 0x%llx %llx %llx %llx from xr0, got 0x%llx > >> %llx %llx %llx", > >> + fp->val64[0], fp->val64[1], fp->val64[2], > >> fp->val64[3], > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0], fpu.fpr[0].val64[1], > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[2], fpu.fpr[0].val64[3]); > >> + > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0] += random(); > >> + vcpu_fpu_set(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + vcpu_fpu_get(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + sync_global_from_guest(vm, *fp); > >> + TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(fpu.fpr, fp, 8), "Wanted 0x%llx from f0, got > >> 0x%llx", > >> + fp->val64[0], fpu.fpr[0].val64[0]); > >> + > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0] += random(); > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[1] += random(); > >> + vcpu_fpu_set(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + vcpu_fpu_get(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + sync_global_from_guest(vm, *fp); > >> + TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(fpu.fpr, fp, 16), "Wanted 0x%llx %llx from > >> vr0, got 0x%llx %llx", > >> + fp->val64[0], fp->val64[1], > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0], fpu.fpr[0].val64[1]); > >> + > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0] += random(); > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[1] += random(); > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[2] += random(); > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[3] += random(); > >> + vcpu_fpu_set(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + vcpu_fpu_get(vcpu, &fpu); > >> + sync_global_from_guest(vm, *fp); > >> + TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(fpu.fpr, fp, 32), > >> + "Wanted 0x%llx %llx %llx %llx from xr0, got 0x%llx > >> %llx %llx %llx", > >> + fp->val64[0], fp->val64[1], fp->val64[2], > >> fp->val64[3], > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[0], fpu.fpr[0].val64[1], > >> + fpu.fpr[0].val64[2], fpu.fpr[0].val64[3]); > >> + > >> + run_vcpu(vcpu); > >> + kvm_vm_free(vm); > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> -- > >> 2.39.3 > >> >
