From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:49096 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727092AbgANRBn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:01:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/4] s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset References: <20200114153054.77082-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20200114153054.77082-4-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:01:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200114153054.77082-4-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: borntraeger@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com On 14/01/2020 16.30, Janosch Frank wrote: > All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, > so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0. >=20 > And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so > we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > --- > s390x/smp.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c > index 767d167..11ab425 100644 > --- a/s390x/smp.c > +++ b/s390x/smp.c > @@ -175,16 +175,31 @@ static void test_emcall(void) > report_prefix_pop(); > } > =20 > +static void test_func_initial(void) > +{ > + lctlg(1, 0x42000UL); > + lctlg(7, 0x43000UL); > + lctlg(13, 0x44000UL); > + testflag =3D 1; > + mb(); > + cpu_loop(); > +} > + > static void test_reset_initial(void) > { > struct cpu_status *status =3D alloc_pages(0); > + uint8_t *nullp =3D alloc_pages(0); Why not simply: uint64_t nullp[12]; ? > struct psw psw; > =20 > + memset(nullp, 0, PAGE_SIZE); > psw.mask =3D extract_psw_mask(); > - psw.addr =3D (unsigned long)test_func; > + psw.addr =3D (unsigned long)test_func_initial; > =20 > report_prefix_push("reset initial"); > + testflag =3D 0; > + mb(); > smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > + wait_for_flag(); > =20 > sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); > sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL); > @@ -195,6 +210,8 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) > report(!status->fpc, "fpc"); > report(!status->cputm, "cpu timer"); > report(!status->todpr, "todpr"); > + report(!memcmp(&status->crs[1], nullp, sizeof(status->crs[1]) * 12), = "cr1-13 =3D=3D 0"); > + report(status->crs[15] =3D=3D 0, "cr15 =3D=3D 0"); > report_prefix_pop(); > =20 > report_prefix_push("initialized"); > @@ -204,6 +221,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) > =20 > report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "cpu stopped"); > free_pages(status, PAGE_SIZE); > + free_pages(nullp, PAGE_SIZE); > report_prefix_pop(); > } > =20 > @@ -219,6 +237,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) > =20 > sigp_retry(1, SIGP_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); > report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "cpu stopped"); > + smp_cpu_destroy(1); Shouldn't that rather be part of patch 2/4 ? I'd maybe also move this to the main() function instead since you've setup the cpu there...? Also is it still ok to use smp_cpu_start() in test_reset_initial() after you've destroyed the CPU here in test_reset()? > report_prefix_pop(); > } Thomas