Re: [PATCH v5 20/22] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add SBI PMU selftest

Andrew Jones
2024-04-05T12:50:34Z

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:04:49AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
...
> +static void test_pmu_basic_sanity(void)
> +{
> + long out_val = 0;
> + bool probe;
> + struct sbiret ret;
> + int num_counters = 0, i;
> + union sbi_pmu_ctr_info ctrinfo;
> +
> + probe = guest_sbi_probe_extension(SBI_EXT_PMU, &out_val);
> + GUEST_ASSERT(probe && out_val == 1);
> +
> + num_counters = get_num_counters();
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num_counters; i++) {
> + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_PMU, SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_GET_INFO, i,
> + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> +
> + /* There can be gaps in logical counter indicies*/
> + if (ret.error)
> + continue;
> + GUEST_ASSERT_NE(ret.value, 0);
> +
> + ctrinfo.value = ret.value;
> +
> + /**
> + * Accesibillity check of hardware and read capability of firmware counters.

Accessibility

> + * The spec doesn't mandate any initial value. No need to check any value.
> + */
> + read_counter(i, ctrinfo);
> + }
> +
> + GUEST_DONE();
> +}
> +
> +static void run_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + struct ucall uc;
> +
> + vcpu_run(vcpu);
> + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> + case UCALL_ABORT:
> + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
> + break;
> + case UCALL_DONE:
> + case UCALL_SYNC:
> + break;
> + default:
> + TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd);
> + break;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +void test_vm_destroy(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> +{
> + memset(ctrinfo_arr, 0, sizeof(union sbi_pmu_ctr_info) * RISCV_MAX_PMU_COUNTERS);
> + counter_mask_available = 0;
> + kvm_vm_free(vm);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_vm_basic_test(void *guest_code)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +
> + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code);
> + __TEST_REQUIRE(__vcpu_has_sbi_ext(vcpu, KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_PMU),
> + "SBI PMU not available, skipping test");
> + vm_init_vector_tables(vm);
> + /* Illegal instruction handler is required to verify read access without configuration */
> + vm_install_exception_handler(vm, EXC_INST_ILLEGAL, guest_illegal_exception_handler);

I still don't see where the "verify" part is. The handler doesn't record
that it had to handle anything.

> +
> + vcpu_init_vector_tables(vcpu);
> + run_vcpu(vcpu);
> +
> + test_vm_destroy(vm);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_vm_events_test(void *guest_code)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vm *vm = NULL;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
> +
> + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code);
> + __TEST_REQUIRE(__vcpu_has_sbi_ext(vcpu, KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_PMU),
> + "SBI PMU not available, skipping test");
> + run_vcpu(vcpu);
> +
> + test_vm_destroy(vm);
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + test_vm_basic_test(test_pmu_basic_sanity);
> + pr_info("SBI PMU basic test : PASS\n");
> +
> + test_vm_events_test(test_pmu_events);
> + pr_info("SBI PMU event verification test : PASS\n");
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Thanks,
drew