From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B9FC433EF for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232354AbiBXK0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 05:26:54 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34330 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233368AbiBXK0v (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 05:26:51 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BC528D386; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 21OA6OKu023279; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:20 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : subject : from : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=V62/Vhb8JDNGuKGbmXIp9CI5BjLEXmRe5rqRdKEc8RY=; b=SWTng3I34oGbUtRXqo9uHXQbA+jUT7PBqUwYrty6U1G31RAiJPQwOJBnCuKm6lD41dcx Fk3uiRTWyRYu6am6Vep5Nbza9Of7zAdjdXkLcObJZk9DNz2WMJlGBa4cqz0sWIJT8Ngm g37kkCR8j1M5OoX6nRznGfZpkRV+Qx4rDfk1pvkRReuL6CC6P0g5JI/EmCSjIfCsp2qC HJN9oAxk+RPXMnX+jhUVpl2fh7rtXvpDTZohw5aKAbozz5XV5mjtrMfiLx1V7ppgZ9zJ FPmswituxJ99qGI4/ZcV/GiV9FWp6cejx7lNdURUI4xSz9DF4axhaX+GgBKz1VjObicr Xw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3edx1wuwyj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:20 +0000 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 21OABuIY026193; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:19 GMT Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3edx1wuwxv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:19 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 21OAJ0II026848; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:17 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ear69ejdj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:17 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 21OAQCQ654460712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:12 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86195AE053; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D987AE059; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.25.98] (unknown [9.171.25.98]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:26:12 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:28:32 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 6/8] s390x: Add more tests for STSCH Content-Language: en-US From: Pierre Morel To: Janosch Frank , Nico Boehr , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Cc: imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, Halil Pasic , thuth@redhat.com, david@redhat.com References: <20220223132940.2765217-1-nrb@linux.ibm.com> <20220223132940.2765217-7-nrb@linux.ibm.com> <04daca6a-5863-d205-ea98-096163a2296a@linux.ibm.com> <06404959-0357-e33d-6114-0484d81578c9@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <06404959-0357-e33d-6114-0484d81578c9@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Kn7QxomSdNCVcZkQZbTPeLEiyOPTea9C X-Proofpoint-GUID: JjyKVP7o0-EqE2GzGKJ1xsKyjUAEA930 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.816,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-02-24_01,2022-02-24_01,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2201110000 definitions=main-2202240060 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 2/24/22 11:27, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > On 2/23/22 16:39, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 2/23/22 14:29, Nico Boehr wrote: >>> css_lib extensively uses STSCH, but two more cases deserve their own >>> tests: >>> >>> - unaligned address for SCHIB. We check for misalignment by 1 and 2 >>>    bytes. >>> - channel not operational >>> - bit 47 in SID not set >>> - bit 5 of PMCW flags. >>>    As per the principles of operation, bit 5 of the PMCW flags shall be >>>    ignored by msch and always stored as zero by stsch. >>> >>>    Older QEMU versions require this bit to always be zero on msch, >>>    which is why this test may fail. A fix is available in QEMU master >>>    commit 2df59b73e086 ("s390x/css: fix PMCW invalid mask"). > >>> Here's the QEMU PMCW invalid mask fix: >>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-s390x/2021-12/msg00100.html >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr >>> --- >>>   s390x/css.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>   1 file changed, 74 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/s390x/css.c b/s390x/css.c >>> index a90a0cd64e2b..021eb12573c0 100644 >>> --- a/s390x/css.c >>> +++ b/s390x/css.c >>> @@ -496,6 +496,78 @@ static void test_ssch(void) >>>       report_prefix_pop(); >>>   } >>> +static void test_stsch(void) >>> +{ >>> +    const int align_to = 4; >>> +    struct schib schib; >>> +    int cc; >>> + >>> +    if (!test_device_sid) { >>> +        report_skip("No device"); >>> +        return; >>> +    } >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_push("Unaligned"); >>> +    for (int i = 1; i < align_to; i *= 2) { >>> +        report_prefix_pushf("%d", i); >>> + >>> +        expect_pgm_int(); >>> +        stsch(test_device_sid, (struct schib *)(alignment_test_page >>> + i)); >>> +        check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION); >>> + >>> +        report_prefix_pop(); >>> +    } >>> +    report_prefix_pop(); >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_push("Invalid subchannel number"); >>> +    cc = stsch(0x0001ffff, &schib); >>> +    report(cc == 3, "Channel not operational"); >>> +    report_prefix_pop(); >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_push("Bit 47 in SID is zero"); >>> +    expect_pgm_int(); >>> +    stsch(0x0000ffff, &schib); >>> +    check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_OPERAND); >>> +    report_prefix_pop(); >> >> Add a comment: >> No matter if the multiple-subchannel-set facility is installed or not, >> bit 47 always needs to be 1. >> >> Do we have the MSS facility? > > yes > >> If yes, could we disable it to test the 32-47 == 0x0001 case? > > AFAIK it is not enabled in the KVM unit tests > We are able to enable it, it could be done with CHSC tests. I mean to check if it is enabled. > >> >>> +} >>> + >>> +static void test_pmcw_bit5(void) >>> +{ >>> +    int cc; >>> +    uint16_t old_pmcw_flags; >> >> I need a comment here for further reference since that behavior is >> documented at the description of the schib and not where STSCH is >> described: >> According to architecture MSCH does ignore bit 5 of the second word >> but STSCH will store bit 5 as zero. >> >> >> We could check if bits 0,1 and 6,7 are also zero but I'm not sure if >> that's interesting since MSCH does not ignore those bits and should >> result in an operand exception when trying to set them. >> >> @Halil, @Pierre: Any opinions? > > > Yes we should check this. > We often do STSCH/MSCH in a row so I think it is interesting to check it. > >> >>> + >>> +    cc = stsch(test_device_sid, &schib); >>> +    if (cc) { >>> +        report_fail("stsch: sch %08x failed with cc=%d", >>> test_device_sid, cc); >>> +        return; >>> +    } >>> +    old_pmcw_flags = schib.pmcw.flags; >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_push("Bit 5 set"); >>> + >>> +    schib.pmcw.flags = old_pmcw_flags | BIT(15 - 5); >>> +    cc = msch(test_device_sid, &schib); >>> +    report(!cc, "MSCH cc == 0"); >>> + >>> +    cc = stsch(test_device_sid, &schib); >>> +    report(!cc, "STSCH cc == 0"); >>> +    report(!(schib.pmcw.flags & BIT(15 - 5)), "STSCH PMCW Bit 5 is >>> clear"); >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_pop(); >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_push("Bit 5 clear"); >>> + >>> +    schib.pmcw.flags = old_pmcw_flags & ~BIT(15 - 5); >>> +    cc = msch(test_device_sid, &schib); >>> +    report(!cc, "MSCH cc == 0"); >>> + >>> +    cc = stsch(test_device_sid, &schib); >>> +    report(!cc, "STSCH cc == 0"); >>> +    report(!(schib.pmcw.flags & BIT(15 - 5)), "STSCH PMCW Bit 5 is >>> clear"); >>> + >>> +    report_prefix_pop(); >>> +} >>> + >>>   static struct { >>>       const char *name; >>>       void (*func)(void); >>> @@ -511,6 +583,8 @@ static struct { >>>       { "msch", test_msch }, >>>       { "stcrw", test_stcrw }, >>>       { "ssch", test_ssch }, >>> +    { "stsch", test_stsch }, >>> +    { "pmcw bit 5 ignored", test_pmcw_bit5 }, >>>       { NULL, NULL } >>>   }; >> > -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen