From: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
To: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
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 3/3] arm: pmu: Add tests for 64-bit overflows
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:31:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5oWZ7q9PkAc84cM@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y5mpM4uQiM+scQ5l@monolith.localdoman>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:45:07AM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:04:04AM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 05:03:40PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Checked that all places where ALL_SET/PRE_OVERFLOW were used are now taking
> > > into account the fact that counters are programmed to be 64bit.
> > >
> > > In the case of 64bit counters, the printf format specifier is %ld, which
> > > means that ALL_SET_64 and PRE_OVERFLOW_64 are now displayed as negative
> > > numbers. For example:
> > >
> > > INFO: pmu: pmu-sw-incr: 32-bit: SW_INCR counter #0 has value 4294967280
> > > PASS: pmu: pmu-sw-incr: 32-bit: PWSYNC does not increment if PMCR.E is unset
> > > [..]
> > > INFO: pmu: pmu-sw-incr: 64-bit: SW_INCR counter #0 has value -16
> > > PASS: pmu: pmu-sw-incr: 64-bit: PWSYNC does not increment if PMCR.E is unset
> > >
> >
> > Argh, I didn't notice this. I think this would be more useful if it
> > printed %llx in all cases.
>
> Indeed, printing the hex value will make it easier to match it against the
> defines.
>
> One more comment below.
>
> >
> > > I was thinking that the format specifiers could be changed to unsigned
> > > long. The counters only increment, they don't decrement, and I can't think
> > > how printing them as signed could be useful.
> > >
> > > One more comment below.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:55:27AM +0000, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> > > > Modify all tests checking overflows to support both 32 (PMCR_EL0.LP == 0)
> > > > and 64-bit overflows (PMCR_EL0.LP == 1). 64-bit overflows are only
> > > > supported on PMUv3p5.
> > > >
> > > > Note that chained tests do not implement "overflow_at_64bits == true".
> > > > That's because there are no CHAIN events when "PMCR_EL0.LP == 1" (for more
> > > > details see AArch64.IncrementEventCounter() pseudocode in the ARM ARM DDI
> > > > 0487H.a, J1.1.1 "aarch64/debug").
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arm/pmu.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
> > > > index 59e5bfe..3cb563b 100644
> > > > --- a/arm/pmu.c
> > > > +++ b/arm/pmu.c
> > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> > > > #define PMU_PMCR_X (1 << 4)
> > > > #define PMU_PMCR_DP (1 << 5)
> > > > #define PMU_PMCR_LC (1 << 6)
> > > > +#define PMU_PMCR_LP (1 << 7)
> > > > #define PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT 11
> > > > #define PMU_PMCR_N_MASK 0x1f
> > > > #define PMU_PMCR_ID_SHIFT 16
> > > > @@ -55,10 +56,15 @@
> > > > #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_HIGH 0x403F
> > > >
> > > > #define ALL_SET 0x00000000FFFFFFFFULL
> > > > +#define ALL_SET_64 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL
> > > > #define ALL_CLEAR 0x0000000000000000ULL
> > > > #define PRE_OVERFLOW 0x00000000FFFFFFF0ULL
> > > > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW_64 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0ULL
> > > > #define PRE_OVERFLOW2 0x00000000FFFFFFDCULL
> > > >
> > > > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW_AT(_64b) (_64b ? PRE_OVERFLOW_64 : PRE_OVERFLOW)
> > > > +#define ALL_SET_AT(_64b) (_64b ? ALL_SET_64 : ALL_SET)
> > > > +
> > > > #define PMU_PPI 23
> > > >
> > > > struct pmu {
> > > > @@ -429,8 +435,10 @@ static bool satisfy_prerequisites(uint32_t *events, unsigned int nb_events,
> > > > static void test_basic_event_count(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > {
> > > > uint32_t implemented_counter_mask, non_implemented_counter_mask;
> > > > - uint32_t counter_mask;
> > > > + uint64_t pre_overflow = PRE_OVERFLOW_AT(overflow_at_64bits);
> > > > + uint64_t pmcr_lp = overflow_at_64bits ? PMU_PMCR_LP : 0;
> > > > uint32_t events[] = {CPU_CYCLES, INST_RETIRED};
> > > > + uint32_t counter_mask;
> > > >
> > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events),
> > > > overflow_at_64bits))
> > > > @@ -452,13 +460,13 @@ static void test_basic_event_count(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > * clear cycle and all event counters and allow counter enablement
> > > > * through PMCNTENSET. LC is RES1.
> > > > */
> > > > - set_pmcr(pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_LC | PMU_PMCR_C | PMU_PMCR_P);
> > > > + set_pmcr(pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_LC | PMU_PMCR_C | PMU_PMCR_P | pmcr_lp);
> > > > isb();
> > > > - report(get_pmcr() == (pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_LC), "pmcr: reset counters");
> > > > + report(get_pmcr() == (pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_LC | pmcr_lp), "pmcr: reset counters");
> > > >
> > > > /* Preset counter #0 to pre overflow value to trigger an overflow */
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == PRE_OVERFLOW,
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == pre_overflow,
> > > > "counter #0 preset to pre-overflow value");
> > > > report(!read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1), "counter #1 is 0");
> > > >
> > > > @@ -511,6 +519,8 @@ static void test_mem_access(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > {
> > > > void *addr = malloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > uint32_t events[] = {MEM_ACCESS, MEM_ACCESS};
> > > > + uint64_t pre_overflow = PRE_OVERFLOW_AT(overflow_at_64bits);
> > > > + uint64_t pmcr_lp = overflow_at_64bits ? PMU_PMCR_LP : 0;
> > > >
> > > > if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events),
> > > > overflow_at_64bits))
> > > > @@ -522,7 +532,7 @@ static void test_mem_access(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > write_regn_el0(pmevtyper, 1, MEM_ACCESS | PMEVTYPER_EXCLUDE_EL0);
> > > > write_sysreg_s(0x3, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> > > > isb();
> > > > - mem_access_loop(addr, 20, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > + mem_access_loop(addr, 20, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > report_info("counter #0 is %ld (MEM_ACCESS)", read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0));
> > > > report_info("counter #1 is %ld (MEM_ACCESS)", read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1));
> > > > /* We may measure more than 20 mem access depending on the core */
> > > > @@ -532,11 +542,11 @@ static void test_mem_access(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > >
> > > > pmu_reset();
> > > >
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, pre_overflow);
> > > > write_sysreg_s(0x3, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> > > > isb();
> > > > - mem_access_loop(addr, 20, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > + mem_access_loop(addr, 20, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3,
> > > > "Ran 20 mem accesses with expected overflows on both counters");
> > > > report_info("cnt#0 = %ld cnt#1=%ld overflow=0x%lx",
> > > > @@ -546,6 +556,8 @@ static void test_mem_access(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > >
> > > > static void test_sw_incr(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > {
> > > > + uint64_t pre_overflow = PRE_OVERFLOW_AT(overflow_at_64bits);
> > > > + uint64_t pmcr_lp = overflow_at_64bits ? PMU_PMCR_LP : 0;
> > > > uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, SW_INCR};
> > > > uint64_t cntr0;
> > > > int i;
> > > > @@ -561,7 +573,7 @@ static void test_sw_incr(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > /* enable counters #0 and #1 */
> > > > write_sysreg_s(0x3, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> > > >
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > isb();
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > > > @@ -569,21 +581,21 @@ static void test_sw_incr(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > >
> > > > isb();
> > > > report_info("SW_INCR counter #0 has value %ld", read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0));
> > > > - report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == PRE_OVERFLOW,
> > > > + report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == pre_overflow,
> > > > "PWSYNC does not increment if PMCR.E is unset");
> > > >
> > > > pmu_reset();
> > > >
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > write_sysreg_s(0x3, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> > > > - set_pmcr(pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > + set_pmcr(pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > isb();
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > > > write_sysreg(0x3, pmswinc_el0);
> > > >
> > > > isb();
> > > > - cntr0 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ? 84 : PRE_OVERFLOW + 100;
> > > > + 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",
> > > > @@ -844,6 +856,9 @@ static bool expect_interrupts(uint32_t bitmap)
> > > >
> > > > static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > {
> > > > + uint64_t pre_overflow = PRE_OVERFLOW_AT(overflow_at_64bits);
> > > > + uint64_t all_set = ALL_SET_AT(overflow_at_64bits);
> > > > + uint64_t pmcr_lp = overflow_at_64bits ? PMU_PMCR_LP : 0;
> > > > uint32_t events[] = {MEM_ACCESS, SW_INCR};
> > > > void *addr = malloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > int i;
> > > > @@ -862,16 +877,16 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > write_regn_el0(pmevtyper, 0, MEM_ACCESS | PMEVTYPER_EXCLUDE_EL0);
> > > > write_regn_el0(pmevtyper, 1, SW_INCR | PMEVTYPER_EXCLUDE_EL0);
> > > > write_sysreg_s(0x3, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, pre_overflow);
> > > > isb();
> > > >
> > > > /* interrupts are disabled (PMINTENSET_EL1 == 0) */
> > > >
> > > > - mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > + mem_access_loop(addr, 20, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > report(expect_interrupts(0), "no overflow interrupt after preset");
> > > >
> > > > - set_pmcr(pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > + set_pmcr(pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > isb();
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > > > @@ -886,12 +901,12 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > >
> > > > pmu_reset_stats();
> > > >
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, pre_overflow);
> > > > write_sysreg(ALL_SET, pmintenset_el1);
> > > > isb();
> > > >
> > > > - mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > + mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > > > write_sysreg(0x3, pmswinc_el0);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -900,25 +915,35 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > report(expect_interrupts(0x3),
> > > > "overflow interrupts expected on #0 and #1");
> > > >
> > > > - /* promote to 64-b */
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * promote to 64-b:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This only applies to the !overflow_at_64bits case, as
> > > > + * overflow_at_64bits doesn't implement CHAIN events. The
> > > > + * overflow_at_64bits case just checks that chained counters are
> > > > + * not incremented when PMCR.LP == 1.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > If this doesn't do anything for when overflow_at_64bits, and since the
> > > interrupt is already tested before this part, why not exit early?
> > >
> > > Or the test could check that the CHAIN event indeed does not increment when
> > > LP=1 at the end of this function.
> >
> > That's precisely what it's doing.
>
> Where? Are you referring to this part?
>
> if (overflow_at_64bits)
> report(expect_interrupts(0x1),
> "expect overflow interrupt on even counter");
>
> My suggestion was to check that the counter that counts the CHAIN event
> didn't increment (PMEVCNTR1_EL0 == all_set).
Ah, I see. Yes, this could check that there are no interrupts and that
the even counter doesn't increment.
> I was thinking that since KVM
> emulates the CHAIN event in software, it might be useful to check that the
> final state of all registers is consistent. I'll leave it up to you to
> decide if you want to add this extra check.
Will add it if no other test is checking that, which I think is the
case.
Thanks!
Ricardo
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Ricardo
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > >
> > > > pmu_reset_stats();
> > > >
> > > > write_regn_el0(pmevtyper, 1, CHAIN | PMEVTYPER_EXCLUDE_EL0);
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > isb();
> > > > - mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > - report(expect_interrupts(0x1),
> > > > - "expect overflow interrupt on 32b boundary");
> > > > + mem_access_loop(addr, 200, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > + report(expect_interrupts(0x1), "expect overflow interrupt");
> > > >
> > > > /* overflow on odd counter */
> > > > pmu_reset_stats();
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > > > - write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
> > > > + write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, all_set);
> > > > isb();
> > > > - mem_access_loop(addr, 400, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E);
> > > > - report(expect_interrupts(0x3),
> > > > - "expect overflow interrupt on even and odd counter");
> > > > + mem_access_loop(addr, 400, pmu.pmcr_ro | PMU_PMCR_E | pmcr_lp);
> > > > + if (overflow_at_64bits)
> > > > + report(expect_interrupts(0x1),
> > > > + "expect overflow interrupt on even counter");
> > > > + else
> > > > + report(expect_interrupts(0x3),
> > > > + "expect overflow interrupt on even and odd counter");
> > > > }
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1119,10 +1144,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > > report_prefix_pop();
> > > > } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-basic-event-count") == 0) {
> > > > run_test(argv[1], test_basic_event_count, false);
> > > > + run_test(argv[1], test_basic_event_count, true);
> > > > } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-mem-access") == 0) {
> > > > run_test(argv[1], test_mem_access, false);
> > > > + run_test(argv[1], test_mem_access, true);
> > > > } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-sw-incr") == 0) {
> > > > run_test(argv[1], test_sw_incr, false);
> > > > + run_test(argv[1], test_sw_incr, true);
> > > > } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-chained-counters") == 0) {
> > > > run_test(argv[1], test_chained_counters, false);
> > > > } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-chained-sw-incr") == 0) {
> > > > @@ -1131,6 +1159,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > > run_test(argv[1], test_chain_promotion, false);
> > > > } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "pmu-overflow-interrupt") == 0) {
> > > > run_test(argv[1], test_overflow_interrupt, false);
> > > > + run_test(argv[1], test_overflow_interrupt, true);
> > > > } else {
> > > > report_abort("Unknown sub-test '%s'", argv[1]);
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.39.0.rc0.267.gcb52ba06e7-goog
> > > >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-14 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-02 4:55 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/3] arm: pmu: Add support for PMUv3p5 Ricardo Koller
2022-12-02 4:55 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] arm: pmu: Fix overflow checks for PMUv3p5 long counters Ricardo Koller
2022-12-09 17:47 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-10 11:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-11 11:40 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-12 9:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-12-12 13:56 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-12 21:00 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-12-13 12:36 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-13 16:21 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-12-13 16:43 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-13 18:01 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-12-14 10:46 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-14 18:07 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-12-02 4:55 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/3] arm: pmu: Prepare for testing 64-bit overflows Ricardo Koller
2022-12-02 4:55 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] arm: pmu: Add tests for " Ricardo Koller
2022-12-13 17:03 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-13 18:04 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-12-14 10:45 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-12-14 18:31 ` Ricardo Koller [this message]
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=Y5oWZ7q9PkAc84cM@google.com \
--to=ricarkol@google.com \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=andrew.jones@linux.dev \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox