| Message ID | 20240501152451.4458-1-manali.shukla@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: selftest: Add family and model check for zen4 in PMU filter test | expand |
On Wed, May 01, 2024, Manali Shukla wrote: > PMU event filter test fails on zen4 architecture because of > unavailability of family and model check for zen4 in use_amd_pmu(). > So, add family and model check for zen4 architecture in use_amd_pmu(). Is there a less ugly way to detect that 0xc2,0 == "branch instructions retired"? E.g. can we instead check for v2 PMU support, or are there no guarantees going forward? Pivoting on FMS is so painful :-(
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c index 3c85d1ae9893..c212ca4ffa72 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c @@ -374,6 +374,12 @@ static bool is_zen3(uint32_t family, uint32_t model) return family == 0x19 && model <= 0x0f; } +static bool is_zen4(uint32_t family, uint32_t model) +{ + return family == 0x19 && ((model >= 0x10 && model <= 0x1f) || + (model >= 0xa0 && model <= 0xaf)); +} + /* * Determining AMD support for a PMU event requires consulting the AMD * PPR for the CPU or reference material derived therefrom. The AMD @@ -390,7 +396,8 @@ static bool use_amd_pmu(void) return host_cpu_is_amd && (is_zen1(family, model) || is_zen2(family, model) || - is_zen3(family, model)); + is_zen3(family, model) || + is_zen4(family, model)); } /*
PMU event filter test fails on zen4 architecture because of unavailability of family and model check for zen4 in use_amd_pmu(). So, add family and model check for zen4 architecture in use_amd_pmu(). Signed-off-by: Manali Shukla <manali.shukla@amd.com> --- .../testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)