| Message ID | 20181207221417.5152-1-wainersm@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | target/i386: Fixes to the check missing features routine | expand |
On 12/7/18 4:14 PM, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: > The x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features() returns a list > of unavailable features compared to the host CPU. Currently it may > return empty strings for unamed features as well as duplicated s/unamed/unnamed/ > names. > > For example, the qmp "query-cpu-definitions" below shows one empty > string and repeated "mpx" entries: > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c > @@ -3615,19 +3615,29 @@ static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, > > x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); > > + /* Uses an auxiliar dictionary to ensure the list of features has not s/auxiliar/auxiliary/ > + repeated name. */ > + QDict *unique_feats_dict = qdict_new(); > +
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 05:14:17PM -0500, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: > The x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features() returns a list > of unavailable features compared to the host CPU. Currently it may > return empty strings for unamed features as well as duplicated > names. > > For example, the qmp "query-cpu-definitions" below shows one empty > string and repeated "mpx" entries: > > (...) > {"execute": "query-cpu-definitions"} > (...) > { > "name": "Cascadelake-Server", > "typename": "Cascadelake-Server-x86_64-cpu", > "unavailable-features": [ > "hle", > "rtm", > "mpx", > "avx512f", > "avx512dq", > "rdseed", > "adx", > "smap", > "clflushopt", > "clwb", > "intel-pt", > "avx512cd", > "avx512bw", > "avx512vl", > "pku", > "", > "avx512vnni", > "spec-ctrl", > "ssbd", > "3dnowprefetch", > "xsavec", > "xgetbv1", > "mpx", > "mpx", > "avx512f", > "avx512f", > "avx512f", > "pku" > ], > (...) > > Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> > --- > Note: the skipped testcase was used to test fix in my system so it has > assumptions about the host CPU. It's impracticial to change it to allow > running on any system though. Therefore, I am okay on either leave or remove > it. Opinions? I disagree with this test. This is an always skipping test that tend to become easily a meaningless dead code. If your real tests that is not being skipped have proper coverage than it should be enough. > --- > target/i386/cpu.c | 12 +++++- > tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c > index f81d35e1f9..2502a3adda 100644 > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c > @@ -3615,19 +3615,29 @@ static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, > > x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); > > + /* Uses an auxiliar dictionary to ensure the list of features has not > + repeated name. */ > + QDict *unique_feats_dict = qdict_new(); > + > for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) { > uint32_t filtered = xc->filtered_features[w]; > int i; > for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) { > if (filtered & (1UL << i)) { > + const char *fname = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); > + if (!fname || qdict_haskey(unique_feats_dict, fname)) { > + continue; > + } > strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); > - new->value = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); > + new->value = g_strdup(fname); > *next = new; > next = &new->next; > + qdict_put_null(unique_feats_dict, new->value); > } > } > } > > + g_free(unique_feats_dict); > object_unref(OBJECT(xc)); > } > > diff --git a/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..65cea0427e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py > @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ > +# CPU definitions tests. > +# > +# Copyright (c) 2018 Red Hat, Inc. > +# > +# Author: > +# Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> > +# > +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or > +# later. See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > + > +from avocado import skip > +from avocado_qemu import Test > + > + > +class CPUDefinitions(Test): > + """ > + Tests for the CPU definitions. > + > + :avocado: enable > + :avocado: tags=x86_64 > + """ > + def test_unavailable_features(self): > + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") > + self.vm.launch() > + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') > + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) > + for cpu_model in cpu_definitions: > + name = cpu_model.get('name') > + unavailable_features = cpu_model.get('unavailable-features') > + > + self.assertNotIn("", unavailable_features, > + name + " has unamed feature") > + self.assertEqual(len(unavailable_features), > + len(set(unavailable_features)), > + name + " has duplicate feature") > + > + @skip("Have assumptions about the host CPU") > + def test_unavailable_features_manual(self): > + """ > + This test is meant for manual testing only because the list of expected > + unavailable features depend on the actual host CPU knowledge. > + """ > + expected_cpu = 'Cascadelake-Server' > + expected_unavailable_features = ["hle", "rtm", "mpx", "avx512f", > + "avx512dq", "rdseed", "adx", "smap", > + "clflushopt", "clwb", "intel-pt", > + "avx512cd", "avx512bw", "avx512vl", > + "pku", "avx512vnni", "spec-ctrl", > + "ssbd", "3dnowprefetch", "xsavec", > + "xgetbv1"] > + > + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") > + self.vm.launch() > + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') > + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) > + > + cpus = [cpu_model for cpu_model in cpu_definitions > + if cpu_model['name'] == expected_cpu] > + actual_unavailable_features = cpus[0]['unavailable-features'] > + self.assertCountEqual(expected_unavailable_features, > + actual_unavailable_features) > -- > 2.19.1 >
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 05:14:17PM -0500, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: > The x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features() returns a list > of unavailable features compared to the host CPU. Currently it may > return empty strings for unamed features as well as duplicated > names. > > For example, the qmp "query-cpu-definitions" below shows one empty > string and repeated "mpx" entries: > > (...) > {"execute": "query-cpu-definitions"} > (...) > { > "name": "Cascadelake-Server", > "typename": "Cascadelake-Server-x86_64-cpu", > "unavailable-features": [ > "hle", > "rtm", > "mpx", > "avx512f", > "avx512dq", > "rdseed", > "adx", > "smap", > "clflushopt", > "clwb", > "intel-pt", > "avx512cd", > "avx512bw", > "avx512vl", > "pku", > "", > "avx512vnni", > "spec-ctrl", > "ssbd", > "3dnowprefetch", > "xsavec", > "xgetbv1", > "mpx", > "mpx", > "avx512f", > "avx512f", > "avx512f", > "pku" > ], > (...) > > Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> > --- > Note: the skipped testcase was used to test fix in my system so it has > assumptions about the host CPU. It's impracticial to change it to allow > running on any system though. Therefore, I am okay on either leave or remove > it. Opinions? > --- > target/i386/cpu.c | 12 +++++- > tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c > index f81d35e1f9..2502a3adda 100644 > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c > @@ -3615,19 +3615,29 @@ static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, > > x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); > > + /* Uses an auxiliar dictionary to ensure the list of features has not > + repeated name. */ > + QDict *unique_feats_dict = qdict_new(); Multiline comments are formatted this way: /* * like * this */ (See CODING_STYLE for details) In this case, we can probably make the comment fit in a single line: /* Auxiliary dict to avoid duplicate entries in the list */ > + > for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) { > uint32_t filtered = xc->filtered_features[w]; > int i; > for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) { > if (filtered & (1UL << i)) { > + const char *fname = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); I believe you didn't mean to call g_strdup() here, as you are now calling g_strdup(fname) below. > + if (!fname || qdict_haskey(unique_feats_dict, fname)) { > + continue; > + } > strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); > - new->value = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); > + new->value = g_strdup(fname); > *next = new; > next = &new->next; > + qdict_put_null(unique_feats_dict, new->value); > } > } > } > > + g_free(unique_feats_dict); > object_unref(OBJECT(xc)); > } > > diff --git a/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..65cea0427e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py > @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ > +# CPU definitions tests. > +# > +# Copyright (c) 2018 Red Hat, Inc. > +# > +# Author: > +# Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> > +# > +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or > +# later. See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > + > +from avocado import skip > +from avocado_qemu import Test > + > + > +class CPUDefinitions(Test): > + """ > + Tests for the CPU definitions. > + > + :avocado: enable > + :avocado: tags=x86_64 > + """ > + def test_unavailable_features(self): > + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") Do you really need accel=kvm to reproduce the original bug? > + self.vm.launch() > + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') > + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) > + for cpu_model in cpu_definitions: > + name = cpu_model.get('name') > + unavailable_features = cpu_model.get('unavailable-features') > + > + self.assertNotIn("", unavailable_features, > + name + " has unamed feature") > + self.assertEqual(len(unavailable_features), > + len(set(unavailable_features)), > + name + " has duplicate feature") > + > + @skip("Have assumptions about the host CPU") > + def test_unavailable_features_manual(self): > + """ > + This test is meant for manual testing only because the list of expected > + unavailable features depend on the actual host CPU knowledge. > + """ > + expected_cpu = 'Cascadelake-Server' > + expected_unavailable_features = ["hle", "rtm", "mpx", "avx512f", > + "avx512dq", "rdseed", "adx", "smap", > + "clflushopt", "clwb", "intel-pt", > + "avx512cd", "avx512bw", "avx512vl", > + "pku", "avx512vnni", "spec-ctrl", > + "ssbd", "3dnowprefetch", "xsavec", > + "xgetbv1"] It looks like this test will work only on one specific host CPU model. It seems very unlikely that anybody will ever try to run it manually. I suggest just deleting it. > + > + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") > + self.vm.launch() > + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') > + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) > + > + cpus = [cpu_model for cpu_model in cpu_definitions > + if cpu_model['name'] == expected_cpu] > + actual_unavailable_features = cpus[0]['unavailable-features'] > + self.assertCountEqual(expected_unavailable_features, > + actual_unavailable_features) > -- > 2.19.1 >
On 12/10/2018 02:46 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 05:14:17PM -0500, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: >> The x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features() returns a list >> of unavailable features compared to the host CPU. Currently it may >> return empty strings for unamed features as well as duplicated >> names. >> >> For example, the qmp "query-cpu-definitions" below shows one empty >> string and repeated "mpx" entries: >> >> (...) >> {"execute": "query-cpu-definitions"} >> (...) >> { >> "name": "Cascadelake-Server", >> "typename": "Cascadelake-Server-x86_64-cpu", >> "unavailable-features": [ >> "hle", >> "rtm", >> "mpx", >> "avx512f", >> "avx512dq", >> "rdseed", >> "adx", >> "smap", >> "clflushopt", >> "clwb", >> "intel-pt", >> "avx512cd", >> "avx512bw", >> "avx512vl", >> "pku", >> "", >> "avx512vnni", >> "spec-ctrl", >> "ssbd", >> "3dnowprefetch", >> "xsavec", >> "xgetbv1", >> "mpx", >> "mpx", >> "avx512f", >> "avx512f", >> "avx512f", >> "pku" >> ], >> (...) >> >> Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> >> --- >> Note: the skipped testcase was used to test fix in my system so it has >> assumptions about the host CPU. It's impracticial to change it to allow >> running on any system though. Therefore, I am okay on either leave or remove >> it. Opinions? >> --- >> target/i386/cpu.c | 12 +++++- >> tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py >> >> diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c >> index f81d35e1f9..2502a3adda 100644 >> --- a/target/i386/cpu.c >> +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c >> @@ -3615,19 +3615,29 @@ static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, >> >> x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); >> >> + /* Uses an auxiliar dictionary to ensure the list of features has not >> + repeated name. */ >> + QDict *unique_feats_dict = qdict_new(); > Multiline comments are formatted this way: > > /* > * like > * this > */ > > (See CODING_STYLE for details) scripts/checkpatch.pl did not catch it. Should it? Thanks! - Wainer > > In this case, we can probably make the comment fit in a single > line: > > /* Auxiliary dict to avoid duplicate entries in the list */ > >> + >> for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) { >> uint32_t filtered = xc->filtered_features[w]; >> int i; >> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) { >> if (filtered & (1UL << i)) { >> + const char *fname = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); > I believe you didn't mean to call g_strdup() here, as you are now > calling g_strdup(fname) below. > >> + if (!fname || qdict_haskey(unique_feats_dict, fname)) { >> + continue; >> + } >> strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); >> - new->value = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); >> + new->value = g_strdup(fname); >> *next = new; >> next = &new->next; >> + qdict_put_null(unique_feats_dict, new->value); >> } >> } >> } >> >> + g_free(unique_feats_dict); >> object_unref(OBJECT(xc)); >> } >> >> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000000..65cea0427e >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py >> @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ >> +# CPU definitions tests. >> +# >> +# Copyright (c) 2018 Red Hat, Inc. >> +# >> +# Author: >> +# Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> >> +# >> +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or >> +# later. See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. >> + >> +from avocado import skip >> +from avocado_qemu import Test >> + >> + >> +class CPUDefinitions(Test): >> + """ >> + Tests for the CPU definitions. >> + >> + :avocado: enable >> + :avocado: tags=x86_64 >> + """ >> + def test_unavailable_features(self): >> + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") > Do you really need accel=kvm to reproduce the original bug? > >> + self.vm.launch() >> + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') >> + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) >> + for cpu_model in cpu_definitions: >> + name = cpu_model.get('name') >> + unavailable_features = cpu_model.get('unavailable-features') >> + >> + self.assertNotIn("", unavailable_features, >> + name + " has unamed feature") >> + self.assertEqual(len(unavailable_features), >> + len(set(unavailable_features)), >> + name + " has duplicate feature") >> + >> + @skip("Have assumptions about the host CPU") >> + def test_unavailable_features_manual(self): >> + """ >> + This test is meant for manual testing only because the list of expected >> + unavailable features depend on the actual host CPU knowledge. >> + """ >> + expected_cpu = 'Cascadelake-Server' >> + expected_unavailable_features = ["hle", "rtm", "mpx", "avx512f", >> + "avx512dq", "rdseed", "adx", "smap", >> + "clflushopt", "clwb", "intel-pt", >> + "avx512cd", "avx512bw", "avx512vl", >> + "pku", "avx512vnni", "spec-ctrl", >> + "ssbd", "3dnowprefetch", "xsavec", >> + "xgetbv1"] > It looks like this test will work only on one specific host CPU > model. It seems very unlikely that anybody will ever try to run > it manually. I suggest just deleting it. > >> + >> + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") >> + self.vm.launch() >> + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') >> + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) >> + >> + cpus = [cpu_model for cpu_model in cpu_definitions >> + if cpu_model['name'] == expected_cpu] >> + actual_unavailable_features = cpus[0]['unavailable-features'] >> + self.assertCountEqual(expected_unavailable_features, >> + actual_unavailable_features) >> -- >> 2.19.1 >>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:40:33PM -0200, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: [...] > > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c > > > index f81d35e1f9..2502a3adda 100644 > > > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c > > > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c > > > @@ -3615,19 +3615,29 @@ static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, > > > x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); > > > + /* Uses an auxiliar dictionary to ensure the list of features has not > > > + repeated name. */ > > > + QDict *unique_feats_dict = qdict_new(); > > Multiline comments are formatted this way: > > > > /* > > * like > > * this > > */ > > > > (See CODING_STYLE for details) > > scripts/checkpatch.pl did not catch it. Should it? It should, we just need a volunteer who understands Perl to fix that. :)
diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c index f81d35e1f9..2502a3adda 100644 --- a/target/i386/cpu.c +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c @@ -3615,19 +3615,29 @@ static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); + /* Uses an auxiliar dictionary to ensure the list of features has not + repeated name. */ + QDict *unique_feats_dict = qdict_new(); + for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) { uint32_t filtered = xc->filtered_features[w]; int i; for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) { if (filtered & (1UL << i)) { + const char *fname = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); + if (!fname || qdict_haskey(unique_feats_dict, fname)) { + continue; + } strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); - new->value = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); + new->value = g_strdup(fname); *next = new; next = &new->next; + qdict_put_null(unique_feats_dict, new->value); } } } + g_free(unique_feats_dict); object_unref(OBJECT(xc)); } diff --git a/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..65cea0427e --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +# CPU definitions tests. +# +# Copyright (c) 2018 Red Hat, Inc. +# +# Author: +# Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> +# +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or +# later. See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. + +from avocado import skip +from avocado_qemu import Test + + +class CPUDefinitions(Test): + """ + Tests for the CPU definitions. + + :avocado: enable + :avocado: tags=x86_64 + """ + def test_unavailable_features(self): + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") + self.vm.launch() + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) + for cpu_model in cpu_definitions: + name = cpu_model.get('name') + unavailable_features = cpu_model.get('unavailable-features') + + self.assertNotIn("", unavailable_features, + name + " has unamed feature") + self.assertEqual(len(unavailable_features), + len(set(unavailable_features)), + name + " has duplicate feature") + + @skip("Have assumptions about the host CPU") + def test_unavailable_features_manual(self): + """ + This test is meant for manual testing only because the list of expected + unavailable features depend on the actual host CPU knowledge. + """ + expected_cpu = 'Cascadelake-Server' + expected_unavailable_features = ["hle", "rtm", "mpx", "avx512f", + "avx512dq", "rdseed", "adx", "smap", + "clflushopt", "clwb", "intel-pt", + "avx512cd", "avx512bw", "avx512vl", + "pku", "avx512vnni", "spec-ctrl", + "ssbd", "3dnowprefetch", "xsavec", + "xgetbv1"] + + self.vm.add_args("-machine", "q35,accel=kvm") + self.vm.launch() + cpu_definitions = self.vm.command('query-cpu-definitions') + self.assertTrue(len(cpu_definitions) > 0) + + cpus = [cpu_model for cpu_model in cpu_definitions + if cpu_model['name'] == expected_cpu] + actual_unavailable_features = cpus[0]['unavailable-features'] + self.assertCountEqual(expected_unavailable_features, + actual_unavailable_features)
The x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features() returns a list of unavailable features compared to the host CPU. Currently it may return empty strings for unamed features as well as duplicated names. For example, the qmp "query-cpu-definitions" below shows one empty string and repeated "mpx" entries: (...) {"execute": "query-cpu-definitions"} (...) { "name": "Cascadelake-Server", "typename": "Cascadelake-Server-x86_64-cpu", "unavailable-features": [ "hle", "rtm", "mpx", "avx512f", "avx512dq", "rdseed", "adx", "smap", "clflushopt", "clwb", "intel-pt", "avx512cd", "avx512bw", "avx512vl", "pku", "", "avx512vnni", "spec-ctrl", "ssbd", "3dnowprefetch", "xsavec", "xgetbv1", "mpx", "mpx", "avx512f", "avx512f", "avx512f", "pku" ], (...) Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com> --- Note: the skipped testcase was used to test fix in my system so it has assumptions about the host CPU. It's impracticial to change it to allow running on any system though. Therefore, I am okay on either leave or remove it. Opinions? --- target/i386/cpu.c | 12 +++++- tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 tests/acceptance/cpu_definitions.py