Hi drew,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:18 PM Andrew Jones ajones@ventanamicro.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 04:36:35PM +0800, Yunhui Cui wrote:
Add test for Zicbom and its block size into CBO tests, when Zicbom is present, test that cbo.clean/flush may be issued and works. As the software can't verify the clean/flush functions, we just judged that cbo.clean/flush isn't executed illegally.
Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui cuiyunhui@bytedance.com
tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c index a40541bb7c7d..b63e23f95e08 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c @@ -81,6 +81,30 @@ static bool is_power_of_2(__u64 n) return n != 0 && (n & (n - 1)) == 0; }
+static void test_zicbom(void *arg) +{
struct riscv_hwprobe pair = {.key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOM_BLOCK_SIZE,};cpu_set_t *cpus = (cpu_set_t *)arg;__u64 block_size;long rc;rc = riscv_hwprobe(&pair, 1, sizeof(cpu_set_t), (unsigned long *)cpus, 0);block_size = pair.value;ksft_test_result(rc == 0 && pair.key == RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOM_BLOCK_SIZE &&is_power_of_2(block_size), "Zicbom block size\n");ksft_print_msg("Zicbom block size: %llu\n", block_size);illegal_insn = false;cbo_clean(&mem[block_size]);ksft_test_result(!illegal_insn, "cbo.clean\n");illegal_insn = false;cbo_flush(&mem[block_size]);ksft_test_result(!illegal_insn, "cbo.flush\n");+}
static void test_zicboz(void *arg) { struct riscv_hwprobe pair = { @@ -129,7 +153,7 @@ static void test_zicboz(void *arg) ksft_test_result_pass("cbo.zero check\n"); }
-static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus) +static void check_no_zicbo_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus, __u64 cbo) { struct riscv_hwprobe pair = { .key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0, @@ -137,6 +161,7 @@ static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus) cpu_set_t one_cpu; int i = 0, c = 0; long rc;
char *cbostr; while (i++ < CPU_COUNT(cpus)) { while (!CPU_ISSET(c, cpus))@@ -148,10 +173,13 @@ static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus) rc = riscv_hwprobe(&pair, 1, sizeof(cpu_set_t), (unsigned long *)&one_cpu, 0); assert(rc == 0 && pair.key == RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0);
if (pair.value & RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ)ksft_exit_fail_msg("Zicboz is only present on a subset of harts.\n""Use taskset to select a set of harts where Zicboz\n""presence (present or not) is consistent for each hart\n");
cbostr = cbo == RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ ? "Zicboz" : "Zicbom";if (pair.value & cbo)ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s is only present on a subset of harts.\n""Use taskset to select a set of harts where %s\n""presence (present or not) is consistent for each hart\n",cbostr, cbostr); ++c; }} @@ -159,6 +187,7 @@ static void check_no_zicboz_cpus(cpu_set_t *cpus) enum { TEST_ZICBOZ, TEST_NO_ZICBOZ,
TEST_ZICBOM, TEST_NO_ZICBOM,};
@@ -169,6 +198,7 @@ static struct test_info { } tests[] = { [TEST_ZICBOZ] = { .nr_tests = 3, test_zicboz }, [TEST_NO_ZICBOZ] = { .nr_tests = 1, test_no_zicboz },
[TEST_ZICBOM] = { .nr_tests = 3, test_zicbom }, [TEST_NO_ZICBOM] = { .nr_tests = 3, test_no_zicbom },};
@@ -206,7 +236,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) tests[TEST_ZICBOZ].enabled = true; tests[TEST_NO_ZICBOZ].enabled = false; } else {
check_no_zicboz_cpus(&cpus);
check_no_zicbo_cpus(&cpus, RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ);}if (pair.value & RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOM) {tests[TEST_ZICBOM].enabled = true;tests[TEST_NO_ZICBOM].enabled = false;} else {check_no_zicbo_cpus(&cpus, RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOM); } for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); ++i)-- 2.39.2
The test_no_zicbom() test needs to have the illegal instruction SIGILL test for cbo.inval moved out into its own test. So, even when we have zicbom we still test that cbo.inval generates a SIGILL.
Do you mean moving cbo_inval() into test_zicbom()? Then does cbo_inval(&mem[0]) also need to be tested in test_no_zicbom()?
Thanks, drew
Thanks, Yunhui