From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2799C4332F for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235548AbiLMQVc (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2022 11:21:32 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34472 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234735AbiLMQV3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2022 11:21:29 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D915F21832 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id m4so292586pls.4 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:21:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zlg4jQtTs5EuLNxR1ELdH12CmuYqfllwivdJVwCtjuw=; b=lOQZM2cRkOQV9eu3fOEAwoxLKc5n4SNmMK3MP05Ja5xj9NG5b1pxTECLZidvka37h7 +DJmTjavteXmm53OnyLmbfWihFAX4m8q6Lc4WMWBCOna12Sv1B3mnhHDfPLBTaFY+plK Hjk0eY3hAczXwmzhMbn0iFw3r4F5gtrLMaEmwyf4ABzSkj9rI185kxhfliPtfIMqW0u9 rr621Y0MGmZKdAWZCDb96rlBazDoZ5ZBWA1WAGgRoDiRj8WQ0F9HwtnKiTSUWhlZCocw B5VXQjAU+EpAR/ud08YWl+zVFjAABdKikLRupPMps+5fl30reHGMpR42MlurlZ7Cg7IN viAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Zlg4jQtTs5EuLNxR1ELdH12CmuYqfllwivdJVwCtjuw=; b=Kq8X3xf/3U7b1FlgftORJnmxCPy9aio2/DxDYOFV83MZYjEZ8YEdoebqrnItmvGvbh VnY8NDlk1e4hY7f2HY6a/fQG4vLQhrjQe8GIPiP5IyWFmHtI3KnEBcZnt01uZwZo5OML VUBsM2w8g5IeKePLy1Q9w3aF02lbtDOw4JewcL1jDyFRO8WViyzLkrKgg7fLpoc29p5B 9nrw/Ly7fL6Z/u94xvT4jXdEIANK+eowG+XaIIgZC0/+v/SdEBZtwztCm6ai/LDJW/gi GTJ+bn112t236vGvCdJIzETY+ixb7HvtbtDRDjDtLKiGa8wJ1cRcZwMAFNUUvWBLU4kQ AYdA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnijs66aZ6kz2P5qWvxsh67aShkMA7TJQrW1J1aixm9sIGJlQGr fCbxUoTvJZ8EqqgFifm3hTwCkQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6aeSlyXEwaXbn3pTOChSbpIcNv8DktV7FmrD7qgXDNh6cBqjhL1TE9+H768oBXbr9L3knt0A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3685:b0:219:d1eb:b8ad with SMTP id mj5-20020a17090b368500b00219d1ebb8admr323541pjb.2.1670948488141; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (220.181.82.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.82.181.220]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nd17-20020a17090b4cd100b002135de3013fsm7400198pjb.32.2022.12.13.08.21.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:21:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:21:24 -0800 From: Ricardo Koller To: Alexandru Elisei Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, andrew.jones@linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, eric.auger@redhat.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, reijiw@google.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] arm: pmu: Fix overflow checks for PMUv3p5 long counters Message-ID: References: <20221202045527.3646838-1-ricarkol@google.com> <20221202045527.3646838-2-ricarkol@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:36:14PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi, > > Some more comments below. > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:55:25AM +0000, Ricardo Koller wrote: > > PMUv3p5 uses 64-bit counters irrespective of whether the PMU is configured > > for overflowing at 32 or 64-bits. The consequence is that tests that check > > the counter values after overflowing should not assume that values will be > > wrapped around 32-bits: they overflow into the other half of the 64-bit > > counters on PMUv3p5. > > > > Fix tests by correctly checking overflowing-counters against the expected > > 64-bit value. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller > > --- > > arm/pmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c > > index cd47b14..eeac984 100644 > > --- a/arm/pmu.c > > +++ b/arm/pmu.c > > @@ -54,10 +54,10 @@ > > #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_LOW 0x4000 > > #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_HIGH 0x403F > > > > -#define ALL_SET 0xFFFFFFFF > > -#define ALL_CLEAR 0x0 > > -#define PRE_OVERFLOW 0xFFFFFFF0 > > -#define PRE_OVERFLOW2 0xFFFFFFDC > > +#define ALL_SET 0x00000000FFFFFFFFULL > > +#define ALL_CLEAR 0x0000000000000000ULL > > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW 0x00000000FFFFFFF0ULL > > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW2 0x00000000FFFFFFDCULL > > > > #define PMU_PPI 23 > > > > @@ -538,6 +538,7 @@ static void test_mem_access(void) > > static void test_sw_incr(void) > > { > > uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, SW_INCR}; > > + uint64_t cntr0; > > int i; > > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events))) > > @@ -572,9 +573,9 @@ static void test_sw_incr(void) > > write_sysreg(0x3, pmswinc_el0); > > > > isb(); > > - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84, "counter #1 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 100, > > - "counter #0 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > + cntr0 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 84 : PRE_OVERFLOW + 100; > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == cntr0, "counter #0 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 100, "counter #1 after + 100 SW_INCR"); > > report_info("counter values after 100 SW_INCR #0=%ld #1=%ld", > > read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0), read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)); > > report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, > > @@ -584,6 +585,7 @@ static void test_sw_incr(void) > > static void test_chained_counters(void) > > { > > uint32_t events[] = {CPU_CYCLES, CHAIN}; > > + uint64_t cntr1; > > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events))) > > return; > > @@ -618,13 +620,16 @@ 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"); > > + cntr1 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 0 : ALL_SET + 1; > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == cntr1, "CHAIN counter #1 wrapped"); > > It looks to me like the intention of the test was to check that the counter > programmed with the CHAIN event wraps, judging from the report message. > Ah, right. Yeah, that message is confusing. It should be the short version of "Inrementing at 32-bits resulted in the right value". > I think it would be interesting to keep that by programming counter #1 with > ~0ULL when PMUv3p5 (maybe call it ALL_SET64?) and test the counter value > against 0. The last commit adds tests using ALL_SET64. Tests can be run in two modes: overflow_at_64bits and not. However, this test, test_chained_counters(), and all other chained tests only use the !overflow_at_64bits mode (even after the last commit). The reason is that there are no CHAIN events when overflowing at 64-bits (more details in the commit message). But, don't worry, there are lots of tests that check wrapping at 64-bits (overflow_at_64bits=true). > Alternatively, the report message can be modified, and "wrapped" > replaced with "incremented" (or something like that), to avoid confusion. > > > + > > report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters"); > > } > > > > static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > > { > > uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, CHAIN}; > > + uint64_t cntr0, cntr1; > > int i; > > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events))) > > @@ -665,10 +670,12 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void) > > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0); > > > > isb(); > > + cntr0 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 0 : ALL_SET + 1; > > + cntr1 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 84 : PRE_OVERFLOW + 100; > > report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3) && > > - (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0) && > > - (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84), > > - "expected overflows and values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN"); > > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == cntr0) && > > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == cntr1), > > This is hard to parse, it would be better if counter 0 is compared against > cntr0 and counter 1 against cntr1. Ah, yes, code is correct but that's indeed confusing. > > Also, same suggestion here, looks like the test wants to check that the > odd-numbered counter wraps around when counting the CHAIN event. Ack. Will update for v2. Thanks! Ricardo > > Thanks, > Alex > > > + "expected overflows and values 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)); > > } > > -- > > 2.39.0.rc0.267.gcb52ba06e7-goog > >