Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v5 11/11] new: arm/barrier-test for memory barriers

alvise rigo
2015-08-03T10:34:16Z

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> alvise rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Nice set of tests, they are proving to be helpful.
>> One question below.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> From: Alex Bennée <alex@bennee.com>
>>>
>>> This test has been written mainly to stress multi-threaded TCG behaviour
>>> but will demonstrate failure by default on real hardware. The test takes
>>> the following parameters:
>>>
>>> - "lock" use GCC's locking semantics
>>> - "excl" use load/store exclusive semantics
>>> - "acqrel" use acquire/release semantics
>>>
>>> Currently excl/acqrel lock up on MTTCG
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> arm/barrier-test.c | 206 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> config/config-arm-common.mak | 2 +
>>> 2 files changed, 208 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 arm/barrier-test.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arm/barrier-test.c b/arm/barrier-test.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..53d690b
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arm/barrier-test.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
>>> +#include <libcflat.h>
>>> +#include <asm/smp.h>
>>> +#include <asm/cpumask.h>
>>> +#include <asm/barrier.h>
>>> +#include <asm/mmu.h>
>>> +
>>> +#include <prng.h>
>>> +
>>> +#define MAX_CPUS 4
>>> +
>>> +/* How many increments to do */
>>> +static int increment_count = 10000000;
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +/* shared value, we use the alignment to ensure the global_lock value
>>> + * doesn't share a page */
>>> +static unsigned int shared_value;
>>> +
>>> +/* PAGE_SIZE * uint32_t means we span several pages */
>>> +static uint32_t memory_array[PAGE_SIZE];
>>> +
>>> +__attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE))) static unsigned int per_cpu_value[MAX_CPUS];
>>> +__attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE))) static cpumask_t smp_test_complete;
>>> +__attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE))) static int global_lock;
>>> +
>>> +struct isaac_ctx prng_context[MAX_CPUS];
>>> +
>>> +void (*inc_fn)(void);
>>> +
>>> +static void lock(int *lock_var)
>>> +{
>>> + while (__sync_lock_test_and_set(lock_var, 1));
>>> +}
>>> +static void unlock(int *lock_var)
>>> +{
>>> + __sync_lock_release(lock_var);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void increment_shared(void)
>>> +{
>>> + shared_value++;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void increment_shared_with_lock(void)
>>> +{
>>> + lock(&global_lock);
>>> + shared_value++;
>>> + unlock(&global_lock);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void increment_shared_with_excl(void)
>>> +{
>>> +#if defined (__LP64__) || defined (_LP64)
>>> + asm volatile(
>>> + "1: ldxr w0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " add w0, w0, #0x1\n"
>>> + " stxr w1, w0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " cbnz w1, 1b\n"
>>> + : /* out */
>>> + : [sptr] "r" (&shared_value) /* in */
>>> + : "w0", "w1", "cc");
>>> +#else
>>> + asm volatile(
>>> + "1: ldrex r0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " add r0, r0, #0x1\n"
>>> + " strexeq r1, r0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " cmpeq r1, #0\n"
>>
>> Why are we calling these last two instructions with the 'eq' suffix?
>> Shouldn't we just strex r1, r0, [sptr] and then cmp r1, #0?
>
> Possibly, my armv7 is a little rusty. I'm just looking at tweaking this
> test now so I'll try and clean that up.
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> alvise
>>
>>> + " bne 1b\n"
>>> + : /* out */
>>> + : [sptr] "r" (&shared_value) /* in */
>>> + : "r0", "r1", "cc");
>>> +#endif
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void increment_shared_with_acqrel(void)
>>> +{
>>> +#if defined (__LP64__) || defined (_LP64)
>>> + asm volatile(
>>> + " ldar w0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " add w0, w0, #0x1\n"
>>> + " str w0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + : /* out */
>>> + : [sptr] "r" (&shared_value) /* in */
>>> + : "w0");
>>> +#else
>>> + /* ARMv7 has no acquire/release semantics but we
>>> + * can ensure the results of the write are propagated
>>> + * with the use of barriers.
>>> + */
>>> + asm volatile(
>>> + "1: ldrex r0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " add r0, r0, #0x1\n"
>>> + " strexeq r1, r0, [%[sptr]]\n"
>>> + " cmpeq r1, #0\n"

I have not tested it, but also this one looks wrong.

Regards,
alvise

>>> + " bne 1b\n"
>>> + " dmb\n"
>>> + : /* out */
>>> + : [sptr] "r" (&shared_value) /* in */
>>> + : "r0", "r1", "cc");
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/* The idea of this is just to generate some random load/store
>>> + * activity which may or may not race with an un-barried incremented
>>> + * of the shared counter
>>> + */
>>> +static void shuffle_memory(int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> + uint32_t lspat = isaac_next_uint32(&prng_context[cpu]);
>>> + uint32_t seq = isaac_next_uint32(&prng_context[cpu]);
>>> + int count = seq & 0x1f;
>>> + uint32_t val=0;
>>> +
>>> + seq >>= 5;
>>> +
>>> + for (i=0; i<count; i++) {
>>> + int index = seq & ~PAGE_MASK;
>>> + if (lspat & 1) {
>>> + val ^= memory_array[index];
>>> + } else {
>>> + memory_array[index] = val;
>>> + }
>>> + seq >>= PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> + seq ^= lspat;
>>> + lspat >>= 1;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void do_increment(void)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>> +
>>> + printf("CPU%d online\n", cpu);
>>> +
>>> + for (i=0; i < increment_count; i++) {
>>> + per_cpu_value[cpu]++;
>>> + inc_fn();
>>> +
>>> + shuffle_memory(cpu);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + printf("CPU%d: Done, %d incs\n", cpu, per_cpu_value[cpu]);
>>> +
>>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &smp_test_complete);
>>> + if (cpu != 0)
>>> + halt();
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> +{
>>> + int cpu;
>>> + unsigned int i, sum = 0;
>>> + static const unsigned char seed[] = "myseed";
>>> +
>>> + inc_fn = &increment_shared;
>>> +
>>> + isaac_init(&prng_context[0], &seed[0], sizeof(seed));
>>> +
>>> + for (i=0; i<argc; i++) {
>>> + char *arg = argv[i];
>>> +
>>> + if (strcmp(arg, "lock") == 0) {
>>> + inc_fn = &increment_shared_with_lock;
>>> + report_prefix_push("lock");
>>> + } else if (strcmp(arg, "excl") == 0) {
>>> + inc_fn = &increment_shared_with_excl;
>>> + report_prefix_push("excl");
>>> + } else if (strcmp(arg, "acqrel") == 0) {
>>> + inc_fn = &increment_shared_with_acqrel;
>>> + report_prefix_push("acqrel");
>>> + } else {
>>> + isaac_reseed(&prng_context[0], (unsigned char *) arg, strlen(arg));
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* fill our random page */
>>> + for (i=0; i<PAGE_SIZE; i++) {
>>> + memory_array[i] = isaac_next_uint32(&prng_context[0]);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>>> + uint32_t seed2 = isaac_next_uint32(&prng_context[0]);
>>> + if (cpu == 0)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + isaac_init(&prng_context[cpu], (unsigned char *) &seed2, sizeof(seed2));
>>> + smp_boot_secondary(cpu, do_increment);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + do_increment();
>>> +
>>> + while (!cpumask_full(&smp_test_complete))
>>> + cpu_relax();
>>> +
>>> + /* All CPUs done, do we add up */
>>> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>>> + sum += per_cpu_value[cpu];
>>> + }
>>> + report("total incs %d", sum == shared_value, shared_value);
>>> +
>>> + return report_summary();
>>> +}
>>> diff --git a/config/config-arm-common.mak b/config/config-arm-common.mak
>>> index 67a9dda..af628e6 100644
>>> --- a/config/config-arm-common.mak
>>> +++ b/config/config-arm-common.mak
>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ endif
>>> tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/selftest.flat
>>> tests-common += $(TEST_DIR)/spinlock-test.flat
>>> tests-common += $(TEST_DIR)/tlbflush-test.flat
>>> +tests-common += $(TEST_DIR)/barrier-test.flat
>>>
>>> utils-common = $(TEST_DIR)/utils/kvm-query
>>>
>>> @@ -80,3 +81,4 @@ utils: $(utils-common)
>>> $(TEST_DIR)/selftest.elf: $(cstart.o) $(TEST_DIR)/selftest.o
>>> $(TEST_DIR)/spinlock-test.elf: $(cstart.o) $(TEST_DIR)/spinlock-test.o
>>> $(TEST_DIR)/tlbflush-test.elf: $(cstart.o) $(TEST_DIR)/tlbflush-test.o
>>> +$(TEST_DIR)/barrier-test.elf: $(cstart.o) $(TEST_DIR)/barrier-test.o
>>> --
>>> 2.5.0
>>>
>
> --
> Alex Bennée