Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 4/5] s390x: ap: Add pqap aqic tests

[Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:42:43 +0000
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Let's check if we can enable/disable interrupts and if all errors are
> reported if we specify bad addresses for the notification indication
> byte.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  lib/s390x/ap.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  lib/s390x/ap.h | 11 ++++++++++
>  s390x/ap.c     | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 100 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/ap.c b/lib/s390x/ap.c
> index 8d7f2992..aaf5b4b9 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/ap.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/ap.c
> @@ -51,6 +51,39 @@ int ap_pqap_tapq(uint8_t ap, uint8_t qn, struct ap_queue_status *apqsw,
>  	return cc;
>  }
>  
> +int ap_pqap_aqic(uint8_t ap, uint8_t qn, struct ap_queue_status *apqsw,
> +		 struct ap_qirq_ctrl aqic, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	struct pqap_r0 r0 = {};
> +	int cc;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * AP-Queue Interruption Control
> +	 *
> +	 * Enables/disables interrupts for a APQN
> +	 *
> +	 * Inputs: 0,1,2
> +	 * Outputs: 1 (APQSW)
> +	 * Synchronous
> +	 */
> +	r0.ap = ap;
> +	r0.qn = qn;
> +	r0.fc = PQAP_QUEUE_INT_CONTRL;
> +	asm volatile(
> +		"	lgr	0,%[r0]\n"
> +		"	lgr	1,%[aqic]\n"
> +		"	lgr	2,%[addr]\n"
> +		"	.insn	rre,0xb2af0000,0,0\n" /* PQAP */
> +		"	stg	1, %[apqsw]\n"
> +		"	ipm	%[cc]\n"
> +		"	srl	%[cc],28\n"
> +		: [apqsw] "=T" (*apqsw), [cc] "=&d" (cc)
> +		: [r0] "d" (r0), [aqic] "d" (aqic), [addr] "d" (addr)
> +		: "cc", "memory", "0", "2");
> +
> +	return cc;
> +}
> +
>  int ap_pqap_qci(struct ap_config_info *info)
>  {
>  	struct pqap_r0 r0 = { .fc = PQAP_QUERY_AP_CONF_INFO };
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/ap.h b/lib/s390x/ap.h
> index 59595eba..3f9e2eb6 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/ap.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/ap.h
> @@ -79,6 +79,15 @@ struct pqap_r2 {
>  } __attribute__((packed))  __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>  _Static_assert(sizeof(struct pqap_r2) == sizeof(uint64_t), "pqap_r2 size");
>  
> +struct ap_qirq_ctrl {
> +	uint64_t res0 : 16;
> +	uint64_t ir    : 1;	/* ir flag: enable (1) or disable (0) irq */
> +	uint64_t res1 : 44;
> +	uint64_t isc   : 3;	/* irq sub class */
> +} __attribute__((packed))  __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct ap_qirq_ctrl) == sizeof(uint64_t),
> +	       "struct ap_qirq_ctrl size");
> +
>  #define AP_SETUP_NOINSTR	-1
>  #define AP_SETUP_NOAPQN		1
>  
> @@ -86,4 +95,6 @@ int ap_setup(uint8_t *ap, uint8_t *qn);
>  int ap_pqap_tapq(uint8_t ap, uint8_t qn, struct ap_queue_status *apqsw,
>  		 struct pqap_r2 *r2);
>  int ap_pqap_qci(struct ap_config_info *info);
> +int ap_pqap_aqic(uint8_t ap, uint8_t qn, struct ap_queue_status *apqsw,
> +		 struct ap_qirq_ctrl aqic, unsigned long addr);
>  #endif
> diff --git a/s390x/ap.c b/s390x/ap.c
> index 20b4e76e..31dcfe29 100644
> --- a/s390x/ap.c
> +++ b/s390x/ap.c
> @@ -292,6 +292,55 @@ static void test_priv(void)
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  }
>  
> +static void test_pqap_aqic(void)
> +{
> +	struct ap_queue_status apqsw = {};
> +	static uint8_t not_ind_byte;
> +	struct ap_qirq_ctrl aqic = {};
> +	struct pqap_r2 r2 = {};
> +
> +	int cc;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("pqap");
> +	report_prefix_push("aqic");
> +
> +	ap_pqap_tapq(apn, qn, &apqsw, &r2);
> +
> +	aqic.ir = 1;
> +	cc = ap_pqap_aqic(apn, qn, &apqsw, aqic, 0);
> +	report(cc == 3 && apqsw.rc == 6, "invalid addr 0");
> +
> +	aqic.ir = 1;
> +	cc = ap_pqap_aqic(apn, qn, &apqsw, aqic, -1);
> +	report(cc == 3 && apqsw.rc == 6, "invalid addr -1");
> +
> +	aqic.ir = 0;
> +	cc = ap_pqap_aqic(apn, qn, &apqsw, aqic, (uintptr_t)&not_ind_byte);
> +	report(cc == 3 && apqsw.rc == 7, "disable");

maybe call it "disable but never enabled"

> +
> +	aqic.ir = 1;
> +	cc = ap_pqap_aqic(apn, qn, &apqsw, aqic, (uintptr_t)&not_ind_byte);
> +	report(cc == 0 && apqsw.rc == 0, "enable");
> +
> +	do {
> +		cc = ap_pqap_tapq(apn, qn, &apqsw, &r2);
> +	} while (cc == 0 && apqsw.irq_enabled == 0);

you do this a lot, would it be worth it abstracting it?

ap_pqap_wait_for_irq(..., false); 

(try to find a better name though)

> +
> +	cc = ap_pqap_aqic(apn, qn, &apqsw, aqic, (uintptr_t)&not_ind_byte);
> +	report(cc == 3 && apqsw.rc == 7, "enable while enabled");
> +
> +	aqic.ir = 0;
> +	cc = ap_pqap_aqic(apn, qn, &apqsw, aqic, (uintptr_t)&not_ind_byte);
> +	assert(cc == 0 && apqsw.rc == 0);
> +
> +	do {
> +		cc = ap_pqap_tapq(apn, qn, &apqsw, &r2);
> +	} while (cc == 0 && apqsw.irq_enabled == 1);

ap_pqap_wait_for_irq(..., true); 

and here test disable again "disable after disable"

> +
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
>  int main(void)
>  {
>  	int setup_rc = ap_setup(&apn, &qn);
> @@ -307,6 +356,13 @@ int main(void)
>  	test_pgms_nqap();
>  	test_pgms_dqap();
>  
> +	/* The next tests need queues */
> +	if (setup_rc == AP_SETUP_NOAPQN) {
> +		report_skip("No APQN available");
> +		goto done;
> +	}
> +	test_pqap_aqic();
> +
>  done:
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  	return report_summary();