From: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, bp@suse.de,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/x86/amx: Fix the test to avoid failure when AMX is unavailable
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:54:26 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaab50d2-592c-69e4-58a6-0a0926669de3@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220401221014.13556-3-chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
On 4/1/22 4:10 PM, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> When a CPU does not have AMX, the test fails. But this is wrong as it
> should be runnable regardless. Skip the test instead.
>
> Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Fixes: 6a3e0651b4a ("selftests/x86/amx: Add test cases for AMX state management")
> Signed-off-by: Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
> Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/x86/amx.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/amx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/amx.c
> index 3615ef4a48bb..14abb6072a7d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/amx.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/amx.c
> @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ static void clearhandler(int sig)
>
> #define CPUID_LEAF1_ECX_XSAVE_MASK (1 << 26)
> #define CPUID_LEAF1_ECX_OSXSAVE_MASK (1 << 27)
> +
> +static struct {
> + unsigned xsave: 1;
> + unsigned osxsave: 1;
> +} cpuinfo;
> +
Why is this needed? Also naming this cpuinfo is confuing.
> static inline void check_cpuid_xsave(void)
> {
> uint32_t eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> @@ -118,10 +124,8 @@ static inline void check_cpuid_xsave(void)
> eax = 1;
> ecx = 0;
> cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> - if (!(ecx & CPUID_LEAF1_ECX_XSAVE_MASK))
> - fatal_error("cpuid: no CPU xsave support");
> - if (!(ecx & CPUID_LEAF1_ECX_OSXSAVE_MASK))
> - fatal_error("cpuid: no OS xsave support");
> + cpuinfo.xsave = !!(ecx & CPUID_LEAF1_ECX_XSAVE_MASK);
> + cpuinfo.osxsave = !!(ecx & CPUID_LEAF1_ECX_OSXSAVE_MASK);
Why add this complexity. Why not just Skip here?
> }
>
> static uint32_t xbuf_size;
> @@ -161,14 +165,31 @@ static void check_cpuid_xtiledata(void)
> * eax: XTILEDATA state component size
> * ebx: XTILEDATA state component offset in user buffer
> */
> - if (!eax || !ebx)
> - fatal_error("xstate cpuid: invalid tile data size/offset: %d/%d",
> - eax, ebx);
> -
> xtiledata.size = eax;
> xtiledata.xbuf_offset = ebx;
> }
>
> +static bool amx_available(void)
> +{
> + check_cpuid_xsave();
> + if (!cpuinfo.xsave) {
> + printf("[SKIP]\tcpuid: no CPU xsave support\n");
> + return false;
> + } else if (!cpuinfo.osxsave) {
> + printf("[SKIP]\tcpuid: no OS xsave support\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + check_cpuid_xtiledata();
> + if (!xtiledata.size || !xtiledata.xbuf_offset) {
> + printf("[SKIP]\txstate cpuid: no tile data (size/offset: %d/%d)\n",
> + xtiledata.size, xtiledata.xbuf_offset);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
I am not seeing any value in adding this layer of abstraction.
Keep it simple and do the handling in main()
> /* The helpers for managing XSAVE buffer and tile states: */
>
> struct xsave_buffer *alloc_xbuf(void)
> @@ -826,9 +847,8 @@ static void test_context_switch(void)
>
> int main(void)
> {
> - /* Check hardware availability at first */
> - check_cpuid_xsave();
> - check_cpuid_xtiledata();
> + if (!amx_available())
> + return 0;
This should KSFT_SKIP for this to be reported as a skip. Returning 0
will be reported as a Pass.
>
> init_stashed_xsave();
> sethandler(SIGILL, handle_noperm, 0);
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-16 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-01 22:10 [PATCH 0/2] selftests/x86: AMX-related test improvements Chang S. Bae
2022-04-01 22:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] selftests/x86/signal: Adjust the test to the kernel's altstack check Chang S. Bae
2022-06-16 22:47 ` Shuah Khan
2022-04-01 22:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/x86/amx: Fix the test to avoid failure when AMX is unavailable Chang S. Bae
2022-06-16 22:54 ` Shuah Khan [this message]
2022-06-17 22:21 ` Chang S. Bae
2022-06-17 22:29 ` Shuah Khan
2022-06-16 22:55 ` [PATCH 0/2] selftests/x86: AMX-related test improvements Shuah Khan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aaab50d2-592c-69e4-58a6-0a0926669de3@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.