[PATCH 2/7] spcache01: Add test for multiprocessor extensions

[Gedare Bloom]

Why not put this in smptests?

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Ralf Kirchner
<ralf.kirchner at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Add test which ensures that a cache invalidate executed by one processor is seen by another processor
> ---
>  testsuites/sptests/spcache01/init.c |  143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 Datei geändert, 141 Zeilen hinzugefügt(+), 2 Zeilen entfernt(-)
>
> diff --git a/testsuites/sptests/spcache01/init.c b/testsuites/sptests/spcache01/init.c
> index 303f7f6..57dd0e7 100644
> --- a/testsuites/sptests/spcache01/init.c
> +++ b/testsuites/sptests/spcache01/init.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>
>  #include <rtems.h>
>  #include <rtems/counter.h>
> +#include <rtems/score/smpbarrier.h>
>
>  #define TESTS_USE_PRINTF
>  #include "tmacros.h"
> @@ -35,8 +36,140 @@ const char rtems_test_name[] = "SPCACHE 1";
>
>  #define I512() I64(); I64(); I64(); I64(); I64(); I64(); I64(); I64()
>
> +#if defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> +  #define TEST_SMP_TASK_COUNT 1
> +#else
> +  #define TEST_SMP_TASK_COUNT 0
> +#endif /* defined( RTEMS_SMP ) */
> +
> +#define TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT 2
> +
> +#define TASK_PRIORITY 1
> +
>  CPU_STRUCTURE_ALIGNMENT static int data[1024];
>
> +#if defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> +typedef enum {
> +  TEST_STATUS_INITIALIZING,
> +  TEST_STATUS_EVALUATING,
> +  TEST_STATUS_FINISHED
> +} test_status;
> +
> +typedef struct {
> +  SMP_barrier_Control barrier;
> +  test_status status;
> +  volatile int *vdata;
> +} test_context;
> +
> +static test_context test_instance = {
> +  SMP_BARRIER_CONTROL_INITIALIZER,
> +  TEST_STATUS_INITIALIZING,
> +  &data[0] /* Verification start address */
> +};
> +
> +static rtems_task test_multiprocessor_extensions_task( rtems_task_argument arg )
> +{
> +  SMP_barrier_State bs = SMP_BARRIER_STATE_INITIALIZER;
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock lock;
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_context lock_context;
> +  int *tdata = &data[0];
> +
> +  (void)arg;
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_initialize(&lock, "test");
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_acquire(&lock, &lock_context);
> +
> +  _SMP_barrier_Wait(&test_instance.barrier, &bs, TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT);
> +
> +  /* Make sure we don't have the cache line cached */
> +  rtems_cache_invalidate_multiple_data_lines(
> +    &tdata[0],
> +    sizeof(tdata[0])
> +  );
> +
> +  _SMP_barrier_Wait(&test_instance.barrier, &bs, TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT);
> +
> +  /* Now the other task should also get the cache line invalidated */
> +  rtems_cache_invalidate_multiple_data_lines(
> +    &tdata[0],
> +    sizeof(tdata[0])
> +  );
> +  test_instance.status = TEST_STATUS_FINISHED;
> +
> +  _SMP_barrier_Wait(&test_instance.barrier, &bs, TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT);
> +
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_release(&lock, &lock_context);
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_destroy(&lock);
> +
> +  rtems_task_delete(RTEMS_SELF);
> +}
> +#endif /* defined( RTEMS_SMP ) */
> +
> +static void test_multiprocessor_extensions( void )
> +{
> +#if defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock lock;
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_context lock_context;
> +  SMP_barrier_State bs = SMP_BARRIER_STATE_INITIALIZER;
> +  rtems_id id_work1 = RTEMS_ID_NONE;
> +  int *tdata = &data[0];
> +  rtems_status_code sc;
> +  const int PATTERN = 0x89ABCDEF;
> +
> +  printf("test for multiprocessor extensions handling\n");
> +
> +
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_initialize(&lock, "test");
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_acquire(&lock, &lock_context);
> +
> +  sc = rtems_task_create(
> +    rtems_build_name('W', 'R', 'K', '1'),
> +                         TASK_PRIORITY,
> +                         RTEMS_MINIMUM_STACK_SIZE,
> +                         RTEMS_DEFAULT_MODES,
> +                         RTEMS_DEFAULT_ATTRIBUTES,
> +                         &id_work1
> +  );
> +  rtems_test_assert(sc == RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL);
> +
> +  sc = rtems_task_start(id_work1, test_multiprocessor_extensions_task, 0);
> +  rtems_test_assert(sc == RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL);
> +
> +  _SMP_barrier_Wait(&test_instance.barrier, &bs, TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT);
> +
> +  /* Make sure we don't have the cache line cached */
> +  rtems_cache_invalidate_multiple_data_lines(
> +    &tdata[0],
> +    sizeof(tdata[0])
> +  );
> +
> +  /* Initialize */
> +  tdata[0] = PATTERN;
> +
> +  /* Flush initialized cache line to RAM */
> +  rtems_cache_flush_multiple_data_lines(
> +    &tdata[0],
> +    sizeof(tdata[0])
> +  );
> +
> +  /* Modify cache line in cache only */
> +  tdata[0] = ~PATTERN;
> +
> +  /* Have the other task invalidate the cache line */
> +  test_instance.status = TEST_STATUS_EVALUATING;
> +  _SMP_barrier_Wait(&test_instance.barrier, &bs, TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT);
> +
> +  _SMP_barrier_Wait(&test_instance.barrier, &bs, TEST_SMP_PROCESSOR_COUNT);
> +
> +  /* The other task has invalidated the cache, thus we should read what was flushed to RAM */
> +  rtems_test_assert(test_instance.vdata[0] == PATTERN);
> +
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_release(&lock, &lock_context);
> +  rtems_interrupt_lock_destroy(&lock);
> +
> +  printf("test for multiprocessor extensions passed\n");
> +#endif /* defined( RTEMS_SMP ) */
> +}
> +
>  static void test_misalignment( const bool write_through )
>  {
>    if (rtems_cache_get_data_line_size() > 0) {
> @@ -647,18 +780,24 @@ static void Init(rtems_task_argument arg)
>    write_through = test_data_flush_and_invalidate();
>    test_misalignment( write_through );
>    test_timing();
> +  test_multiprocessor_extensions();
>
>    TEST_END();
>
>    rtems_test_exit(0);
>  }
>
> -#define CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_CLOCK_DRIVER
> +#if defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> +  #define CONFIGURE_SMP_APPLICATION
> +  #define CONFIGURE_SMP_MAXIMUM_PROCESSORS 32
> +#endif /* defined( RTEMS_SMP ) */
> +#define CONFIGURE_INIT_TASK_PRIORITY TASK_PRIORITY
> +#define CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_DOES_NOT_NEED_CLOCK_DRIVER
>  #define CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_CONSOLE_DRIVER
>
>  #define CONFIGURE_USE_IMFS_AS_BASE_FILESYSTEM
>
> -#define CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_TASKS 1
> +#define CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_TASKS (1 + TEST_SMP_TASK_COUNT)
>
>  #define CONFIGURE_INITIAL_EXTENSIONS RTEMS_TEST_INITIAL_EXTENSION
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel