Width of chunk related bitfields is ACTIVATE_SCAN and SCAN_STATUS MSRs
are different in newer IFS generation compared to gen0.
Make changes to scan test flow such that MSRs are populated
appropriately based on the generation supported by hardware.
Account for the 8/16 bit MSR bitfield width differences between gen0 and
newer generations for the scan test trace event too.
Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++-----
include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h | 16 +++++++-------
drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++------
3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h
index 43281d456a09..cd213b89d278 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h
@@ -199,9 +199,17 @@ union ifs_chunks_auth_status_gen2 {
union ifs_scan {
u64 data;
struct {
- u32 start :8;
- u32 stop :8;
- u32 rsvd :16;
+ union {
+ struct {
+ u8 start;
+ u8 stop;
+ u16 rsvd;
+ } gen0;
+ struct {
+ u16 start;
+ u16 stop;
+ } gen2;
+ };
u32 delay :31;
u32 sigmce :1;
};
@@ -211,9 +219,17 @@ union ifs_scan {
union ifs_status {
u64 data;
struct {
- u32 chunk_num :8;
- u32 chunk_stop_index :8;
- u32 rsvd1 :16;
+ union {
+ struct {
+ u8 chunk_num;
+ u8 chunk_stop_index;
+ u16 rsvd1;
+ } gen0;
+ struct {
+ u16 chunk_num;
+ u16 chunk_stop_index;
+ } gen2;
+ };
u32 error_code :8;
u32 rsvd2 :22;
u32 control_error :1;
diff --git a/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h b/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h
index d7353024016c..af0af3f1d9b7 100644
--- a/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h
+++ b/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h
@@ -10,25 +10,25 @@
TRACE_EVENT(ifs_status,
- TP_PROTO(int cpu, union ifs_scan activate, union ifs_status status),
+ TP_PROTO(int cpu, int start, int stop, u64 status),
- TP_ARGS(cpu, activate, status),
+ TP_ARGS(cpu, start, stop, status),
TP_STRUCT__entry(
__field( u64, status )
__field( int, cpu )
- __field( u8, start )
- __field( u8, stop )
+ __field( u16, start )
+ __field( u16, stop )
),
TP_fast_assign(
__entry->cpu = cpu;
- __entry->start = activate.start;
- __entry->stop = activate.stop;
- __entry->status = status.data;
+ __entry->start = start;
+ __entry->stop = stop;
+ __entry->status = status;
),
- TP_printk("cpu: %d, start: %.2x, stop: %.2x, status: %llx",
+ TP_printk("cpu: %d, start: %.4x, stop: %.4x, status: %.16llx",
__entry->cpu,
__entry->start,
__entry->stop,
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
index 1061eb7ec399..94d486e5d263 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
@@ -171,21 +171,30 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
union ifs_status status;
unsigned long timeout;
struct ifs_data *ifsd;
+ int to_start, to_stop;
+ int status_chunk;
u64 msrvals[2];
int retries;
ifsd = ifs_get_data(dev);
- activate.rsvd = 0;
activate.delay = IFS_THREAD_WAIT;
activate.sigmce = 0;
- activate.start = 0;
- activate.stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
+ to_start = 0;
+ to_stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
+
+ if (ifsd->generation) {
+ activate.gen2.start = to_start;
+ activate.gen2.stop = to_stop;
+ } else {
+ activate.gen0.start = to_start;
+ activate.gen0.stop = to_stop;
+ }
timeout = jiffies + HZ / 2;
retries = MAX_IFS_RETRIES;
- while (activate.start <= activate.stop) {
+ while (to_start <= to_stop) {
if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
status.error_code = IFS_SW_TIMEOUT;
break;
@@ -196,13 +205,14 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
status.data = msrvals[1];
- trace_ifs_status(cpu, activate, status);
+ trace_ifs_status(cpu, to_start, to_stop, status.data);
/* Some cases can be retried, give up for others */
if (!can_restart(status))
break;
- if (status.chunk_num == activate.start) {
+ status_chunk = ifsd->generation ? status.gen2.chunk_num : status.gen0.chunk_num;
+ if (status_chunk == to_start) {
/* Check for forward progress */
if (--retries == 0) {
if (status.error_code == IFS_NO_ERROR)
@@ -211,7 +221,9 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
}
} else {
retries = MAX_IFS_RETRIES;
- activate.start = status.chunk_num;
+ ifsd->generation ? (activate.gen2.start = status_chunk) :
+ (activate.gen0.start = status_chunk);
+ to_start = status_chunk;
}
}
--
2.25.1
On 9/25/2023 8:39 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>
...
>>
>> - activate.rsvd = 0;
>> activate.delay = IFS_THREAD_WAIT;
>> activate.sigmce = 0;
>> - activate.start = 0;
>> - activate.stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
>> + to_start = 0;
>> + to_stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
>> +
>> + if (ifsd->generation) {
>> + activate.gen2.start = to_start;
>> + activate.gen2.stop = to_stop;
>> + } else {
>> + activate.gen0.start = to_start;
>> + activate.gen0.stop = to_stop;
>> + }
>
> Is it okay to not do activate.gen0.rsvd = 0 anymore? If you know it is, it
> would be nice to record that fact into the changelog so that it can be
> found in the history.
I did test on a gen0 to check if there is a problem due to this (and it seemed fine).
I will make a note in changelog as you suggest
>
>>
>> timeout = jiffies + HZ / 2;
>> retries = MAX_IFS_RETRIES;
>>
>> - while (activate.start <= activate.stop) {
>> + while (to_start <= to_stop) {
>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>> status.error_code = IFS_SW_TIMEOUT;
>> break;
>> @@ -196,13 +205,14 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
>>
>> status.data = msrvals[1];
>>
>> - trace_ifs_status(cpu, activate, status);
>> + trace_ifs_status(cpu, to_start, to_stop, status.data);
>>
>> /* Some cases can be retried, give up for others */
>> if (!can_restart(status))
>> break;
>>
>> - if (status.chunk_num == activate.start) {
>> + status_chunk = ifsd->generation ? status.gen2.chunk_num : status.gen0.chunk_num;
>> + if (status_chunk == to_start) {
>> /* Check for forward progress */
>> if (--retries == 0) {
>> if (status.error_code == IFS_NO_ERROR)
>> @@ -211,7 +221,9 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
>> }
>> } else {
>> retries = MAX_IFS_RETRIES;
>> - activate.start = status.chunk_num;
>> + ifsd->generation ? (activate.gen2.start = status_chunk) :
>> + (activate.gen0.start = status_chunk);
>
> The alignment of the second line is still not correct but now I notice how
> the left-hand side is hidden within those expressions. Just do a normal if
> instead so that it is simpler to understand, please.
In v1 the second line was kept 1 space to the right of previous line. In v2 I kept
them at the same indent, since your original comment was Misaliged.
I will change these two lines to
if (ifsd->generation)
activate.gen2.start = status_chunk;
else
activate.gen0.start = status_chunk
Jithu
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> Width of chunk related bitfields is ACTIVATE_SCAN and SCAN_STATUS MSRs
> are different in newer IFS generation compared to gen0.
>
> Make changes to scan test flow such that MSRs are populated
> appropriately based on the generation supported by hardware.
>
> Account for the 8/16 bit MSR bitfield width differences between gen0 and
> newer generations for the scan test trace event too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h | 16 +++++++-------
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++------
> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h
> index 43281d456a09..cd213b89d278 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h
> @@ -199,9 +199,17 @@ union ifs_chunks_auth_status_gen2 {
> union ifs_scan {
> u64 data;
> struct {
> - u32 start :8;
> - u32 stop :8;
> - u32 rsvd :16;
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 start;
> + u8 stop;
> + u16 rsvd;
> + } gen0;
> + struct {
> + u16 start;
> + u16 stop;
> + } gen2;
> + };
> u32 delay :31;
> u32 sigmce :1;
> };
> @@ -211,9 +219,17 @@ union ifs_scan {
> union ifs_status {
> u64 data;
> struct {
> - u32 chunk_num :8;
> - u32 chunk_stop_index :8;
> - u32 rsvd1 :16;
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 chunk_num;
> + u8 chunk_stop_index;
> + u16 rsvd1;
> + } gen0;
> + struct {
> + u16 chunk_num;
> + u16 chunk_stop_index;
> + } gen2;
> + };
> u32 error_code :8;
> u32 rsvd2 :22;
> u32 control_error :1;
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h b/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h
> index d7353024016c..af0af3f1d9b7 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/intel_ifs.h
> @@ -10,25 +10,25 @@
>
> TRACE_EVENT(ifs_status,
>
> - TP_PROTO(int cpu, union ifs_scan activate, union ifs_status status),
> + TP_PROTO(int cpu, int start, int stop, u64 status),
>
> - TP_ARGS(cpu, activate, status),
> + TP_ARGS(cpu, start, stop, status),
>
> TP_STRUCT__entry(
> __field( u64, status )
> __field( int, cpu )
> - __field( u8, start )
> - __field( u8, stop )
> + __field( u16, start )
> + __field( u16, stop )
> ),
>
> TP_fast_assign(
> __entry->cpu = cpu;
> - __entry->start = activate.start;
> - __entry->stop = activate.stop;
> - __entry->status = status.data;
> + __entry->start = start;
> + __entry->stop = stop;
> + __entry->status = status;
> ),
>
> - TP_printk("cpu: %d, start: %.2x, stop: %.2x, status: %llx",
> + TP_printk("cpu: %d, start: %.4x, stop: %.4x, status: %.16llx",
> __entry->cpu,
> __entry->start,
> __entry->stop,
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
> index 1061eb7ec399..94d486e5d263 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
> @@ -171,21 +171,30 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
> union ifs_status status;
> unsigned long timeout;
> struct ifs_data *ifsd;
> + int to_start, to_stop;
> + int status_chunk;
> u64 msrvals[2];
> int retries;
>
> ifsd = ifs_get_data(dev);
>
> - activate.rsvd = 0;
> activate.delay = IFS_THREAD_WAIT;
> activate.sigmce = 0;
> - activate.start = 0;
> - activate.stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
> + to_start = 0;
> + to_stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
> +
> + if (ifsd->generation) {
> + activate.gen2.start = to_start;
> + activate.gen2.stop = to_stop;
> + } else {
> + activate.gen0.start = to_start;
> + activate.gen0.stop = to_stop;
> + }
Is it okay to not do activate.gen0.rsvd = 0 anymore? If you know it is, it
would be nice to record that fact into the changelog so that it can be
found in the history.
>
> timeout = jiffies + HZ / 2;
> retries = MAX_IFS_RETRIES;
>
> - while (activate.start <= activate.stop) {
> + while (to_start <= to_stop) {
> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> status.error_code = IFS_SW_TIMEOUT;
> break;
> @@ -196,13 +205,14 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
>
> status.data = msrvals[1];
>
> - trace_ifs_status(cpu, activate, status);
> + trace_ifs_status(cpu, to_start, to_stop, status.data);
>
> /* Some cases can be retried, give up for others */
> if (!can_restart(status))
> break;
>
> - if (status.chunk_num == activate.start) {
> + status_chunk = ifsd->generation ? status.gen2.chunk_num : status.gen0.chunk_num;
> + if (status_chunk == to_start) {
> /* Check for forward progress */
> if (--retries == 0) {
> if (status.error_code == IFS_NO_ERROR)
> @@ -211,7 +221,9 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
> }
> } else {
> retries = MAX_IFS_RETRIES;
> - activate.start = status.chunk_num;
> + ifsd->generation ? (activate.gen2.start = status_chunk) :
> + (activate.gen0.start = status_chunk);
The alignment of the second line is still not correct but now I notice how
the left-hand side is hidden within those expressions. Just do a normal if
instead so that it is simpler to understand, please.
> + to_start = status_chunk;
> }
> }
>
>
--
i.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 8:39 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> >
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> - activate.rsvd = 0;
> >> activate.delay = IFS_THREAD_WAIT;
> >> activate.sigmce = 0;
> >> - activate.start = 0;
> >> - activate.stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
> >> + to_start = 0;
> >> + to_stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
> >> +
> >> + if (ifsd->generation) {
> >> + activate.gen2.start = to_start;
> >> + activate.gen2.stop = to_stop;
> >> + } else {
> >> + activate.gen0.start = to_start;
> >> + activate.gen0.stop = to_stop;
> >> + }
> >
> > Is it okay to not do activate.gen0.rsvd = 0 anymore? If you know it is, it
> > would be nice to record that fact into the changelog so that it can be
> > found in the history.
>
> I did test on a gen0 to check if there is a problem due to this (and it seemed fine).
> I will make a note in changelog as you suggest
Actually, I realized activate is a variable in stack and those bits are
uninitilized without that assignment so don't remove it.
--
i.
On 9/26/2023 3:20 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
>> On 9/25/2023 8:39 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> - activate.rsvd = 0;
>>>> activate.delay = IFS_THREAD_WAIT;
>>>> activate.sigmce = 0;
>>>> - activate.start = 0;
>>>> - activate.stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
>>>> + to_start = 0;
>>>> + to_stop = ifsd->valid_chunks - 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ifsd->generation) {
>>>> + activate.gen2.start = to_start;
>>>> + activate.gen2.stop = to_stop;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + activate.gen0.start = to_start;
>>>> + activate.gen0.stop = to_stop;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Is it okay to not do activate.gen0.rsvd = 0 anymore? If you know it is, it
>>> would be nice to record that fact into the changelog so that it can be
>>> found in the history.
>>
>> I did test on a gen0 to check if there is a problem due to this (and it seemed fine).
>> I will make a note in changelog as you suggest
>
> Actually, I realized activate is a variable in stack and those bits are
> uninitilized without that assignment so don't remove it.
>
Ok, I will post a v3 with all the suggested changes in a few days ... Thanks for the review
Jithu