Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] arm: pmu: Remove checks for !overflow in chained counters tests

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
Cc: drjones@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] arm: pmu: Remove checks for !overflow in chained counters tests
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 13:47:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sfmiwywd.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220718154910.3923412-4-ricarkol@google.com>

Hi Ricardo,

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:49:10 +0100,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com> wrote:
> 
> A chained event overflowing on the low counter can set the overflow flag
> in PMOVS.  KVM does not set it, but real HW and the fast-model seem to.
> Moreover, the AArch64.IncrementEventCounter() pseudocode in the ARM ARM
> (DDI 0487H.a, J1.1.1 "aarch64/debug") also sets the PMOVS bit on
> overflow.
> 
> The pmu chain tests fail on bare metal when checking the overflow flag
> of the low counter _not_ being set on overflow.  Fix by removing the
> checks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
> ---
>  arm/pmu.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
> index a7899c3c..4f2c5096 100644
> --- a/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -581,7 +581,6 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void)
>  	precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
>  
>  	report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1, "CHAIN counter #1 incremented");
> -	report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), "no overflow recorded for chained incr #1");
>  
>  	/* test 64b overflow */
>  
> @@ -593,7 +592,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void)
>  	precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
>  	report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0));
>  	report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 2, "CHAIN counter #1 set to 2");
> -	report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0), "no overflow recorded for chained incr #2");
> +	report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) & 0x2) == 0, "no overflow recorded for chained incr #2");
>  
>  	write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
>  	write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET);
> @@ -601,7 +600,7 @@ static void test_chained_counters(void)
>  	precise_instrs_loop(22, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
>  	report_info("overflow reg = 0x%lx", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0));
>  	report(!read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped");
> -	report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2, "overflow on chain counter");
> +	report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) & 0x2, "overflow on chain counter");
>  }
>  
>  static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
> @@ -626,10 +625,10 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
>  	for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
>  		write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0);
>  
> -	report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) && (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1),
> -		"no overflow and chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN");
> +	report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1,
> +			"no chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN");
>  	report_info("overflow=0x%lx, #0=%ld #1=%ld", read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0),
> -		    read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1));
> +			read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1));
>  
>  	/* 64b SW_INCR and overflow on CHAIN counter*/
>  	pmu_reset();
> @@ -644,7 +643,7 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
>  	for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
>  		write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0);
>  
> -	report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2) &&
> +	report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) & 0x2) &&
>  		(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0) &&
>  		(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84),
>  		"overflow on chain counter and expected values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN");
> @@ -727,8 +726,8 @@ static void test_chain_promotion(void)
>  	report_info("MEM_ACCESS counter #0 has value 0x%lx",
>  		    read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0));
>  
> -	report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && !read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0),
> -		"CHAIN counter enabled: CHAIN counter was incremented and no overflow");
> +	report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1),
> +		"CHAIN counter enabled: CHAIN counter was incremented");
>  
>  	report_info("CHAIN counter #1 = 0x%lx, overflow=0x%lx",
>  		read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0));
> @@ -755,8 +754,8 @@ static void test_chain_promotion(void)
>  	report_info("MEM_ACCESS counter #0 has value 0x%lx",
>  		    read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0));
>  
> -	report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1) && !read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0),
> -		"32b->64b: CHAIN counter incremented and no overflow");
> +	report((read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1),
> +		"32b->64b: CHAIN counter incremented");
>  
>  	report_info("CHAIN counter #1 = 0x%lx, overflow=0x%lx",
>  		read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0));

I'm looking at fixing KVM to match this (see the binch of hacks at
[1]), and still getting a couple of failures in the PMU overflow tests
despite my best effort to fix the code:

$ ./arm-run  arm/pmu.flat --append pmu-overflow-interrupt
/usr/bin/qemu-system-aarch64 -nodefaults -machine virt,gic-version=host -accel kvm -cpu host -device virtio-serial-device -device virtconsole,chardev=ctd -chardev testdev,id=ctd -device pci-testdev -display none -serial stdio -kernel arm/pmu.flat --append pmu-overflow-interrupt # -initrd /tmp/tmp.RQ6FmkvXay
INFO: PMU version: 0x1
INFO: PMU implementer/ID code: 0x41("A")/0x3
INFO: Implements 6 event counters
PASS: pmu: pmu-overflow-interrupt: no overflow interrupt after preset
PASS: pmu: pmu-overflow-interrupt: no overflow interrupt after counting
INFO: pmu: pmu-overflow-interrupt: overflow=0x0
PASS: pmu: pmu-overflow-interrupt: overflow interrupts expected on #0 and #1
FAIL: pmu: pmu-overflow-interrupt: no overflow interrupt expected on 32b boundary
FAIL: pmu: pmu-overflow-interrupt: expect overflow interrupt on odd counter
SUMMARY: 5 tests, 2 unexpected failures

Looking at the kut code, I'm wondering whether you're still missing a
couple of extra fixes such as:

diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
index 4f2c5096..e0b9f71a 100644
--- a/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/arm/pmu.c
@@ -861,8 +861,8 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(void)
 	write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
 	isb();
 	mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
-	report(expect_interrupts(0),
-		"no overflow interrupt expected on 32b boundary");
+	report(expect_interrupts(1),
+		"expect overflow interrupt on 32b counter");
 
 	/* overflow on odd counter */
 	pmu_reset_stats();
@@ -870,8 +870,8 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(void)
 	write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET);
 	isb();
 	mem_access_loop(addr, 400, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
-	report(expect_interrupts(0x2),
-		"expect overflow interrupt on odd counter");
+	report(expect_interrupts(0x3),
+		"expect overflow interrupt on even+odd counters");
 }
 #endif
 
With that, all PMU tests pass. Am I missing something? Did you notice
these failing on HW?

Thanks,

	M.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/log/?h=kvm-arm64/pmu-chained

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
