Message-ID: <CAAeT=Fyy-3fsN3aWRtX9AoBoHVXyWmY+TJAOuty3Tz=kH5HmJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 22:09:49 -0800
From:   Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REPOST PATCH 12/16] selftests: KVM: aarch64: Test PMU
 overflow/IRQ functionality

Hi Raghu,

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:07 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
<rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Extend the vCPU migration test to also validate the vPMU's
> functionality when set up for overflow conditions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
> ---
>  .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c | 223 ++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c
> index 0c9d801f4e602..066dc17fa3906 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c
> @@ -21,7 +21,9 @@
>   *
>   * 4. Since the PMU registers are per-cpu, stress KVM by frequently
>   * migrating the guest vCPU to random pCPUs in the system, and check
> - * if the vPMU is still behaving as expected.
> + * if the vPMU is still behaving as expected. The sub-tests include
> + * testing basic functionalities such as basic counters behavior,
> + * overflow, and overflow interrupts.
>   *
>   * Copyright (c) 2022 Google LLC.
>   *
> @@ -41,13 +43,27 @@
>  #include <sys/sysinfo.h>
>
>  #include "delay.h"
> +#include "gic.h"
> +#include "spinlock.h"
>
>  /* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */
>  #define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1)
>
> +/* The cycle counter bit position that's common among the PMU registers */
> +#define ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_COUNTER_IDX    31
> +
>  /* The max number of event numbers that's supported */
>  #define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS           64
>
> +#define PMU_IRQ                                23
> +
> +#define COUNT_TO_OVERFLOW      0xFULL
> +#define PRE_OVERFLOW_32                (GENMASK(31, 0) - COUNT_TO_OVERFLOW + 1)
> +#define PRE_OVERFLOW_64                (GENMASK(63, 0) - COUNT_TO_OVERFLOW + 1)
> +
> +#define GICD_BASE_GPA  0x8000000ULL
> +#define GICR_BASE_GPA  0x80A0000ULL
> +
>  #define msecs_to_usecs(msec)           ((msec) * 1000LL)
>
>  /*
> @@ -162,6 +178,17 @@ static inline void write_sel_evtyper(int sel, unsigned long val)
>         isb();
>  }
>
> +static inline void write_pmovsclr(unsigned long val)
> +{
> +       write_sysreg(val, pmovsclr_el0);
> +       isb();
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long read_pmovsclr(void)
> +{
> +       return read_sysreg(pmovsclr_el0);
> +}
> +
>  static inline void enable_counter(int idx)
>  {
>         uint64_t v = read_sysreg(pmcntenset_el0);
> @@ -178,11 +205,33 @@ static inline void disable_counter(int idx)
>         isb();
>  }
>
> +static inline void enable_irq(int idx)
> +{
> +       uint64_t v = read_sysreg(pmcntenset_el0);
> +
> +       write_sysreg(BIT(idx) | v, pmintenset_el1);
> +       isb();
> +}
> +
> +static inline void disable_irq(int idx)
> +{
> +       uint64_t v = read_sysreg(pmcntenset_el0);
> +
> +       write_sysreg(BIT(idx) | v, pmintenclr_el1);
> +       isb();
> +}
> +
>  static inline uint64_t read_cycle_counter(void)
>  {
>         return read_sysreg(pmccntr_el0);
>  }
>
> +static inline void write_cycle_counter(uint64_t v)
> +{
> +       write_sysreg(v, pmccntr_el0);
> +       isb();
> +}
> +
>  static inline void reset_cycle_counter(void)
>  {
>         uint64_t v = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0);
> @@ -289,6 +338,15 @@ struct guest_data {
>
>  static struct guest_data guest_data;
>
> +/* Data to communicate among guest threads */
> +struct guest_irq_data {
> +       uint32_t pmc_idx_bmap;
> +       uint32_t irq_received_bmap;
> +       struct spinlock lock;
> +};
> +
> +static struct guest_irq_data guest_irq_data;
> +
>  #define VCPU_MIGRATIONS_TEST_ITERS_DEF         1000
>  #define VCPU_MIGRATIONS_TEST_MIGRATION_FREQ_MS 2
>
> @@ -322,6 +380,79 @@ static void guest_sync_handler(struct ex_regs *regs)
>         expected_ec = INVALID_EC;
>  }
>
> +static void guest_validate_irq(int pmc_idx, uint32_t pmovsclr, uint32_t pmc_idx_bmap)

Can you please add a comment about what is pmc_idx_bmap ?


> +{
> +       /*
> +        * Fail if there's an interrupt from unexpected PMCs.
> +        * All the expected events' IRQs may not arrive at the same time.
> +        * Hence, check if the interrupt is valid only if it's expected.
> +        */
> +       if (pmovsclr & BIT(pmc_idx)) {
> +               GUEST_ASSERT_3(pmc_idx_bmap & BIT(pmc_idx), pmc_idx, pmovsclr, pmc_idx_bmap);
> +               write_pmovsclr(BIT(pmc_idx));
> +       }
> +}
> +
> +static void guest_irq_handler(struct ex_regs *regs)
> +{
> +       uint32_t pmc_idx_bmap;
> +       uint64_t i, pmcr_n = get_pmcr_n();
> +       uint32_t pmovsclr = read_pmovsclr();
> +       unsigned int intid = gic_get_and_ack_irq();
> +
> +       /* No other IRQ apart from the PMU IRQ is expected */
> +       GUEST_ASSERT_1(intid == PMU_IRQ, intid);
> +
> +       spin_lock(&guest_irq_data.lock);

Could you explain why this lock is required in this patch ??
If this is used to serialize the interrupt context code and
the normal (non-interrupt) context code, you might want to
disable the IRQ ?  Using the spin lock won't work well for
that if the interrupt handler is invoked while the normal
context code grabs the lock.
Having said that, since execute_precise_instrs() disables the PMU
 via PMCR, and does isb after that, I don't think the overflow
interrupt is delivered while the normal context code is in
pmu_irq_*() anyway.

> +       pmc_idx_bmap = READ_ONCE(guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap);
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < pmcr_n; i++)
> +               guest_validate_irq(i, pmovsclr, pmc_idx_bmap);
> +       guest_validate_irq(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_COUNTER_IDX, pmovsclr, pmc_idx_bmap);
> +
> +       /* Mark IRQ as recived for the corresponding PMCs */
> +       WRITE_ONCE(guest_irq_data.irq_received_bmap, pmovsclr);
> +       spin_unlock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +
> +       gic_set_eoi(intid);
> +}
> +
> +static int pmu_irq_received(int pmc_idx)
> +{
> +       bool irq_received;
> +
> +       spin_lock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +       irq_received = READ_ONCE(guest_irq_data.irq_received_bmap) & BIT(pmc_idx);
> +       WRITE_ONCE(guest_irq_data.irq_received_bmap, guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap & ~BIT(pmc_idx));
> +       spin_unlock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +
> +       return irq_received;
> +}
> +
> +static void pmu_irq_init(int pmc_idx)
> +{
> +       write_pmovsclr(BIT(pmc_idx));
> +
> +       spin_lock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +       WRITE_ONCE(guest_irq_data.irq_received_bmap, guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap & ~BIT(pmc_idx));
> +       WRITE_ONCE(guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap, guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap | BIT(pmc_idx));
> +       spin_unlock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +
> +       enable_irq(pmc_idx);
> +}
> +
> +static void pmu_irq_exit(int pmc_idx)
> +{
> +       write_pmovsclr(BIT(pmc_idx));
> +
> +       spin_lock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +       WRITE_ONCE(guest_irq_data.irq_received_bmap, guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap & ~BIT(pmc_idx));
> +       WRITE_ONCE(guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap, guest_irq_data.pmc_idx_bmap & ~BIT(pmc_idx));
> +       spin_unlock(&guest_irq_data.lock);
> +
> +       disable_irq(pmc_idx);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Run the given operation that should trigger an exception with the
>   * given exception class. The exception handler (guest_sync_handler)
> @@ -420,12 +551,20 @@ static void execute_precise_instrs(int num, uint32_t pmcr)
>         precise_instrs_loop(loop, pmcr);
>  }
>
> -static void test_instructions_count(int pmc_idx, bool expect_count)
> +static void test_instructions_count(int pmc_idx, bool expect_count, bool test_overflow)
>  {
>         int i;
>         struct pmc_accessor *acc;
> -       uint64_t cnt;
> -       int instrs_count = 100;
> +       uint64_t cntr_val = 0;
> +       int instrs_count = 500;

Can we set instrs_count based on the value we set for cntr_val?
(so that instrs_count can be adjusted automatically when we change the
value of cntr_val ?)

> +
> +       if (test_overflow) {
> +               /* Overflow scenarios can only be tested when a count is expected */
> +               GUEST_ASSERT_1(expect_count, pmc_idx);
> +
> +               cntr_val = PRE_OVERFLOW_32;
> +               pmu_irq_init(pmc_idx);
> +       }
>
>         enable_counter(pmc_idx);
>
> @@ -433,41 +572,68 @@ static void test_instructions_count(int pmc_idx, bool expect_count)
>         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pmc_accessors); i++) {
>                 acc = &pmc_accessors[i];
>
> -               pmu_disable_reset();
> -
> +               acc->write_cntr(pmc_idx, cntr_val);
>                 acc->write_typer(pmc_idx, ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED);
>
> -               /* Enable the PMU and execute precisely number of instructions as a workload */
> -               execute_precise_instrs(instrs_count, read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E);
> +               /*
> +                * Enable the PMU and execute a precise number of instructions as a workload.
> +                * Since execute_precise_instrs() disables the PMU at the end, 'instrs_count'
> +                * should have enough instructions to raise an IRQ.
> +                */
> +               execute_precise_instrs(instrs_count, ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E);
>
> -               /* If a count is expected, the counter should be increased by 'instrs_count' */
> -               cnt = acc->read_cntr(pmc_idx);
> -               GUEST_ASSERT_4(expect_count == (cnt == instrs_count),
> -                               i, expect_count, cnt, instrs_count);
> +               /*
> +                * If an overflow is expected, only check for the overflag flag.
> +                * As overflow interrupt is enabled, the interrupt would add additional
> +                * instructions and mess up the precise instruction count. Hence, measure
> +                * the instructions count only when the test is not set up for an overflow.
> +                */
> +               if (test_overflow) {
> +                       GUEST_ASSERT_2(pmu_irq_received(pmc_idx), pmc_idx, i);
> +               } else {
> +                       uint64_t cnt = acc->read_cntr(pmc_idx);
> +
> +                       GUEST_ASSERT_4(expect_count == (cnt == instrs_count),
> +                                       pmc_idx, i, cnt, expect_count);
> +               }
>         }
>
> -       disable_counter(pmc_idx);
> +       if (test_overflow)
> +               pmu_irq_exit(pmc_idx);
>  }
>
> -static void test_cycles_count(bool expect_count)
> +static void test_cycles_count(bool expect_count, bool test_overflow)
>  {
>         uint64_t cnt;
>
> -       pmu_enable();
> -       reset_cycle_counter();
> +       if (test_overflow) {
> +               /* Overflow scenarios can only be tested when a count is expected */
> +               GUEST_ASSERT(expect_count);
> +
> +               write_cycle_counter(PRE_OVERFLOW_64);
> +               pmu_irq_init(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_COUNTER_IDX);
> +       } else {
> +               reset_cycle_counter();
> +       }
>
>         /* Count cycles in EL0 and EL1 */
>         write_pmccfiltr(0);
>         enable_cycle_counter();
>
> +       /* Enable the PMU and execute precisely number of instructions as a workload */

Can you please add a comment why we do this (500 times) iterations ?
Can we set the iteration number based on the initial value of the
cycle counter ?

> +       execute_precise_instrs(500, read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E);
>         cnt = read_cycle_counter();
  >
>         /*
>          * If a count is expected by the test, the cycle counter should be increased by
> -        * at least 1, as there is at least one instruction between enabling the
> +        * at least 1, as there are a number of instructions between enabling the
>          * counter and reading the counter.
>          */

"at least 1" doesn't seem to be consistent with the GUEST_ASSERT_2 below
when test_overflow is true, considering the initial value of the cycle counter.
Shouldn't this GUEST_ASSERT_2 be executed only if test_overflow is false ?
(Or do you want to adjust the comment ?)

>         GUEST_ASSERT_2(expect_count == (cnt > 0), cnt, expect_count);
> +       if (test_overflow) {
> +               GUEST_ASSERT_2(pmu_irq_received(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_COUNTER_IDX), cnt, expect_count);
> +               pmu_irq_exit(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_COUNTER_IDX);
> +       }
>
>         disable_cycle_counter();
>         pmu_disable_reset();
> @@ -477,19 +643,28 @@ static void test_event_count(uint64_t event, int pmc_idx, bool expect_count)
>  {
>         switch (event) {
>         case ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED:
> -               test_instructions_count(pmc_idx, expect_count);
> +               test_instructions_count(pmc_idx, expect_count, false);
>                 break;
>         case ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES:
> -               test_cycles_count(expect_count);
> +               test_cycles_count(expect_count, false);
>                 break;
>         }
>  }
>
>  static void test_basic_pmu_functionality(void)
>  {
> +       local_irq_disable();
> +       gic_init(GIC_V3, 1, (void *)GICD_BASE_GPA, (void *)GICR_BASE_GPA);
> +       gic_irq_enable(PMU_IRQ);
> +       local_irq_enable();
> +
>         /* Test events on generic and cycle counters */
> -       test_instructions_count(0, true);
> -       test_cycles_count(true);
> +       test_instructions_count(0, true, false);
> +       test_cycles_count(true, false);
> +
> +       /* Test overflow with interrupts on generic and cycle counters */
> +       test_instructions_count(0, true, true);
> +       test_cycles_count(true, true);
>  }
>
>  /*
> @@ -813,9 +988,6 @@ static void guest_code(void)
>         GUEST_DONE();
>  }
>
> -#define GICD_BASE_GPA  0x8000000ULL
> -#define GICR_BASE_GPA  0x80A0000ULL
> -
>  static unsigned long *
>  set_event_filters(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters)
>  {
> @@ -866,7 +1038,7 @@ create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters)
>         struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>         struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
>         uint8_t pmuver, ec;
> -       uint64_t dfr0, irq = 23;
> +       uint64_t dfr0, irq = PMU_IRQ;
>         struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm;
>         struct kvm_device_attr irq_attr = {
>                 .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
> @@ -883,6 +1055,7 @@ create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters)
>
>         vpmu_vm->vm = vm = vm_create(1);
>         vm_init_descriptor_tables(vm);
> +       vm_install_exception_handler(vm, VECTOR_IRQ_CURRENT, guest_irq_handler);
>
>         /* Catch exceptions for easier debugging */
>         for (ec = 0; ec < ESR_EC_NUM; ec++) {
> --
> 2.39.1.581.gbfd45094c4-goog
>

Thanks,
Reiji

Powered by blists - more mailing lists