From: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
To: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
maz@kernel.org, alexandru.elisei@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com,
oliver.upton@linux.dev, reijiw@google.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/3] arm: pmu: Check for overflow in the low counter in chained counters tests
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 17:43:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YuxnvTT9EATgTY22@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220804081832.3pyn7nospfdekbz3@kamzik>
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 10:18:32AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 11:23:28AM -0700, Ricardo Koller 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 checking for
> > overflow. Note that this test fails in KVM without the respective fix.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
> > ---
> > arm/pmu.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
> > index 7c5bc259..258780f4 100644
> > --- a/arm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/arm/pmu.c
> > @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ 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");
> > + report(read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #1");
> >
> > /* test 64b overflow */
> >
> > @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ 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) == 0x1, "overflow recorded for chained incr #2");
> >
> > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, PRE_OVERFLOW);
> > write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, ALL_SET);
> > @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ 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) == 0x3, "overflow on even and odd counters");
> > }
> >
> > static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
> > @@ -629,8 +629,9 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
> > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0);
> >
> > isb();
> > - report(!read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) && (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1),
> > - "no overflow and chain counter incremented after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN");
> > + report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x1) &&
> > + (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 1),
> > + "overflow and 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));
> >
> > @@ -648,10 +649,10 @@ static void test_chained_sw_incr(void)
> > write_sysreg(0x1, pmswinc_el0);
> >
> > isb();
> > - report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x2) &&
> > + report((read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0) == 0x3) &&
> > (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1) == 0) &&
> > (read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0) == 84),
> > - "overflow on chain counter and expected values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN");
> > + "overflow on even and odd counters, and expected values after 100 SW_INCR/CHAIN");
>
> Besides the extra space, this doesn't read well (to me).
Replaced the sentence with something simpler and hopefully nicer (in v3).
Thanks,
Ricardo
>
> Thanks,
> drew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-05 0:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-03 18:23 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 0/3] arm: pmu: Fixes for bare metal Ricardo Koller
2022-08-03 18:23 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/3] arm: pmu: Add missing isb()'s after sys register writing Ricardo Koller
2022-08-04 8:55 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-08-05 0:42 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-08-03 18:23 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/3] arm: pmu: Reset the pmu registers before starting some tests Ricardo Koller
2022-08-04 18:21 ` Eric Auger
2022-08-03 18:23 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/3] arm: pmu: Check for overflow in the low counter in chained counters tests Ricardo Koller
2022-08-04 8:18 ` Andrew Jones
2022-08-05 0:43 ` Ricardo Koller [this message]
2022-08-04 18:21 ` Eric Auger
2022-08-08 10:40 ` Marc Zyngier
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=YuxnvTT9EATgTY22@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