From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f174.google.com (mail-pl1-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3A2139D19 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723537518; cv=none; b=ImomNttpBw4FZNPSP+UGsXyZH4thPHRh02zIEyDQPGayO2mzpD+DZepwCSe/7ewk7UlzGVXOI1u7PFvTvvC8r7GH8eanZD9hukaCv7iRP8cDhdWIa5vtgDkQoi5UkrNtgf5+jNmdfRQOkQf1P1pnShEVNZNR/YK9f++xD1E4u6k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723537518; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ticLzo1D1Z1sjZgeDlR6Zve8BS6KFbGk+IUK2ukCi0U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VAlnyPpItk+mo0NYXn3hIaVSIGaQ9PlDzVzXYKGPuD9IGa/cBYQ94feimz+RliINrjM0aq0iuFbNIwPEOdjcfHxOBWg5yKKgrWUKudpkOIRQEDcbSDEMg+UEcKQ0mXcWFGIK9qSB2EB6s8ZbMkZYZPGVuCQe2D308SHksYIqn4M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=gaXl6EyJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="gaXl6EyJ" Received: by mail-pl1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1fdb28b1c16so2079955ad.0 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 01:25:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; t=1723537516; x=1724142316; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BEVQUoupjy6wk58i7p/fsO85d4SvbuK+rKeOG6aigEM=; b=gaXl6EyJO+y8Y718fexPjOc7v7fiLfQhIoi9yFUjimF2oCiX03m+qHka+ngqLrpup/ AFpf6RzI3k1vujQcgz+JUdkv/HVg4IguyWZ/T55QE5rUu2xmCe5xLkWBaF00z28D2NWX iTYglWMjKQfLREG6ewUk5R0u8weUwTVy+UtwM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723537516; x=1724142316; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BEVQUoupjy6wk58i7p/fsO85d4SvbuK+rKeOG6aigEM=; b=O0g+KjP7Ecvoy2sapBdr1X9C3vGk3qADjOuX0Q+OQJj+pr29VIO9dLbBQwuyHevdQR 6mT2OgeaRPOtSVg2LkCklDNJta44bMkaZsccUaOLM4M2Kxb9WbslAjqQf4zpjxE9bOn0 /ZExYAdJipoGil3IxWQls84A+xlZMbCDTiDdqWL29jLJ3nPdUWgX4nKhPn7ZfUH6i7pi 4n3P8OWwMVEseUMNz0G10tW1cIkB1ZcNqsMxITXMTLP0m93CtkZFR2IeDYrwhjP7LlPz Nbx8ffGkX3XPi6K7WbS1nWZ/+yCCaXsLigtC/0ckLeWkEN6NE54Ma20p1X2CUGavQj/w KyXA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVr4leLq3nk2cBZUELYOOW8pEyaczOa/1c3Rksa9l/e+ebxyhh+TMeRReoPtGb3GosFe2GeMh5XmqdGkTnfZq0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxNNTqq5XBEwYRGIf12uhk/lA+JVZDjCa3cofiS9qRoonOPNs16 ZsuydmnjEmItDQiKs6wr7r+lu9h6omLwUOJLBKX7Tp5oMg7C/8iZor6pfkmr2hM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEzerHMMnSocDJNSeStQIOJD4TADhd5o4PWjCgbclTFtVtQtLu0V2Mdoxxa/g9NHeXq3eD+Ag== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:dac3:b0:1fc:52f4:1802 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-201cdb4e08dmr9870845ad.10.1723537515728; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 01:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.104.75] ([223.118.51.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-201cd1aa017sm8496045ad.143.2024.08.13.01.25.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Aug 2024 01:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <98d8f119-02f7-49af-a891-cb13bd9f9a2d@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:25:10 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: resctrl: ignore builds for unsupported architectures To: Reinette Chatre , =?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?= , Muhammad Usama Anjum Cc: Fenghua Yu , Shaopeng Tan , kernel@collabora.com, LKML , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wiecz=C3=B3r-Retman?= , Shuah Khan References: <20240809071059.265914-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com> <080c4692-c53c-417f-9975-0b4ced0b044c@collabora.com> <4072bf51-1d37-4595-a2fa-b72f83c8298b@linuxfoundation.org> <6dd1b5ce-2ce2-4d61-beff-a100da213528@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Shuah Khan In-Reply-To: <6dd1b5ce-2ce2-4d61-beff-a100da213528@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 8/12/24 18:05, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Shuah, > > On 8/12/24 3:49 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 8/9/24 02:45, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> Adding Maciej. >>> >>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>> On 8/9/24 12:23 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This test doesn't have support for other architectures. Altough resctrl >>>>>> is supported on x86 and ARM, but arch_supports_noncont_cat() shows that >>>>>> only x86 for AMD and Intel are supported by the test. >>>>> >>>>> One does not follow from the other. arch_supports_noncont_cat() is only >>>>> small part of the tests so saying "This test" based on a small subset of >>>>> all tests is bogus. Also, I don't see any reason why ARCH_ARM could not be >>>>> added and arch_supports_noncont_cat() adapted accordingly. >>>> I'm not familiar with resctrl and the architectural part of it. Feel >>>> free to fix it and ignore this patch. >>>> >>>> If more things are missing than just adjusting >>>> arch_supports_noncont_cat(), the test should be turned off until proper >>>> support is added to the test. >>>> >>>>>> We get build >>>>>> errors when built for ARM and ARM64. >>>>> >>>>> As this seems the real reason, please quote any errors when you use them >>>>> as justification so it can be reviewed if the reasoning is sound or not. >>>> >>>>    CC       resctrl_tests >>>> In file included from resctrl.h:24, >>>>                   from cat_test.c:11: >>>> In function 'arch_supports_noncont_cat', >>>>      inlined from 'noncont_cat_run_test' at cat_test.c:323:6: >>>> ../kselftest.h:74:9: error: impossible constraint in 'asm' >>>>     74 |         __asm__ __volatile__ ("cpuid\n\t" >>>>         \ >>>>        |         ^~~~~~~ >>>> cat_test.c:301:17: note: in expansion of macro '__cpuid_count' >>>>    301 |                 __cpuid_count(0x10, 1, eax, ebx, ecx, edx); >>>>        |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> ../kselftest.h:74:9: error: impossible constraint in 'asm' >>>>     74 |         __asm__ __volatile__ ("cpuid\n\t" >>>>         \ >>>>        |         ^~~~~~~ >>>> cat_test.c:303:17: note: in expansion of macro '__cpuid_count' >>>>    303 |                 __cpuid_count(0x10, 2, eax, ebx, ecx, edx); >>>>        |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Okay, so it's specific to lack of CPUID. This seems a kselftest common >>> level problem to me, since __cpuid_count() is provided in kselftest.h. >>> >>> Shuah (or others), what is the intended mechanism for selftests to know if >>> it can be used or not since as is, it's always defined? >> _cpuid_count() gets defined in ksefltest.h if it can't find it. >> >> As the comment says both gcc and cland probide __cpuid_count() >> >>    gcc cpuid.h provides __cpuid_count() since v4.4. >>    Clang/LLVM cpuid.h provides  __cpuid_count() since v3.4.0. >> >>> >>> I see some Makefiles use compile testing a trivial program to decide whether >>> they build some x86_64 tests or not. Is that what should be done here too, >>> test if __cpuid_count() compiles or not (and then build some #ifdeffery >>> based on the result of that compile testing)? >>> >> >> These build errors need to be fixed instead of restricting the build> In some cases when the test can't be supported on an architecture then it is okay >> to suppress build. This is not a general solution to suppress build warnings > > While there is an effort to support Arm in resctrl [1], this is not currently > the case and the resctrl selftests as a consequence only support x86 with > built-in assumptions that a test runs on either AMD or Intel. After the kernel gains support > for Arm more changes will be needed for the resctrl tests to support another architecture > so I do think the most appropriate change to address this build failure is to restrict > resctrl tests to x86. > Sounds good to me. This would be good case for suppressing test build. >> >> I would recommend against adding suppress build code when it can be fixed. > > I expect after resctrl fs obtains support for Arm the resctrl selftests can be > updated to support it with more fine grained architectural checks than a global > enable/disable needed at this time. > >> >> Let's investigate this problem to fix it properly. I don't see any arm and arm64 >> maintainers and developers on this thread. It would be good to investigate to >> see if this can be fixed. thanks, -- Shuah