At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
programmed as CHAIN.
Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
implement the 64b logic.
Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
---
virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
+ bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
+
if (!(val & BIT(i)))
continue;
type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
@@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
- if (!reg)
+ if (reg) /* no overflow */
+ continue;
+ if (chained) {
+ reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
+ reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
+ if (reg)
+ continue;
+ /* mark an overflow on high counter */
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
+ } else {
+ /* mark an overflow */
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
+ }
}
}
}
--
2.20.1
Hi Eric,
On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
> programmed as CHAIN.
>
> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
> implement the 64b logic.
>
> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, u64 val)
>
> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
> +
I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
this. But see below:
> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> continue;
> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, u64 val)
> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
> - if (!reg)
> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
> + continue;
> + if (chained) {
> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
> + if (reg)
> + continue;
> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
> + } else {
> + /* mark an overflow */
> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
> + }
> }
> }
> }
I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
completely untested.
Thoughts?
M.
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
index 8731dfeced8b..cf371f643ade 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -480,26 +480,43 @@ static void kvm_pmu_perf_overflow(struct
perf_event *perf_event,
*/
void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
{
+ struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
int i;
- u64 type, enable, reg;
- if (val == 0)
- return;
+ /* Weed out disabled counters */
+ val &= __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
- enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
+ u64 type, reg;
+ int ovs = i;
+
if (!(val & BIT(i)))
continue;
- type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
- & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
- if ((type == ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR)
- && (enable & BIT(i))) {
- reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
- reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
- __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
- if (!reg)
- __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
+
+ /* PMSWINC only applies to ... SW_INC! */
+ type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i);
+ type &= ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
+ if (type != ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Potential 64bit value */
+ reg = kvm_pmu_get_counter_value(vcpu, i) + 1;
+
+ /* Start by writing back the low 32bits */
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = lower_32_bits(reg);
+
+ /*
+ * 64bit counter? Write back the upper bits and target
+ * the overflow bit at the next counter
+ */
+ if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(&pmu->pmc[i])) {
+ reg = upper_32_bits(reg);
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
+ ovs++;
}
+
+ if (!lower_32_bits(reg))
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(ovs);
}
}
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Hi Marc,
On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
>> programmed as CHAIN.
>>
>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
>> implement the 64b logic.
>>
>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>
>> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
>> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
>> +
>
> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
> this. But see below:
>
>> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
>> continue;
>> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
>> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
>> - if (!reg)
>> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
>> + continue;
>> + if (chained) {
>> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
>> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
>> + if (reg)
>> + continue;
>> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
>> + } else {
>> + /* mark an overflow */
>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
>> + }
>> }
>> }
>> }
>
> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
>
> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
> completely untested.
Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
Thanks
Eric
>
> Thoughts?
>
> M.
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index 8731dfeced8b..cf371f643ade 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -480,26 +480,43 @@ static void kvm_pmu_perf_overflow(struct
> perf_event *perf_event,
> */
> void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> {
> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> int i;
> - u64 type, enable, reg;
>
> - if (val == 0)
> - return;
> + /* Weed out disabled counters */
> + val &= __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>
> - enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
> + u64 type, reg;
> + int ovs = i;
> +
> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> continue;
> - type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
> - & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
> - if ((type == ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR)
> - && (enable & BIT(i))) {
> - reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
> - reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> - __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
> - if (!reg)
> - __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
> +
> + /* PMSWINC only applies to ... SW_INC! */
> + type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i);
> + type &= ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
> + if (type != ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR)
> + continue;
> +
> + /* Potential 64bit value */
> + reg = kvm_pmu_get_counter_value(vcpu, i) + 1;
> +
> + /* Start by writing back the low 32bits */
> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = lower_32_bits(reg);
> +
> + /*
> + * 64bit counter? Write back the upper bits and target
> + * the overflow bit at the next counter
> + */
> + if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(&pmu->pmc[i])) {
> + reg = upper_32_bits(reg);
> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
> + ovs++;
> }
> +
> + if (!lower_32_bits(reg))
> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(ovs);
> }
> }
>
>
On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
>>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
>>> programmed as CHAIN.
>>>
>>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
>>> implement the 64b logic.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU
>>> counters")
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>
>>> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>>> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
>>> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
>>> +
>>
>> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
>> this. But see below:
>>
>>> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
>>> continue;
>>> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
>>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct
>>> kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
>>> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
>>> - if (!reg)
>>> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
>>> + continue;
>>> + if (chained) {
>>> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1)
>>> + 1;
>>> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
>>> + if (reg)
>>> + continue;
>>> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* mark an overflow */
>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
>>> + }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
>> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
>>
>> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
>> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
>> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
>> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
>> completely untested.
>
> Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if
> the
> n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
*and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.
Again, untested:
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
#include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
select_idx);
+static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
select_idx);
#define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
@@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu, u64 val)
* For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
* perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
*/
+ kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
@@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
- if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
+ if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
+ kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
/*
* During promotion from !chained to chained we must ensure
* the adjacent counter is stopped and its event destroyed
What do you think?
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Hi Marc,
On 12/5/19 3:52 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
>>>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
>>>> programmed as CHAIN.
>>>>
>>>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
>>>> implement the 64b logic.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>>
>>>> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>>>> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
>>>> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
>>> this. But see below:
>>>
>>>> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
>>>> continue;
>>>> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
>>>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
>>>> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
>>>> - if (!reg)
>>>> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + if (chained) {
>>>> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
>>>> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
>>>> + if (reg)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
>>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + /* mark an overflow */
>>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
>>> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
>>>
>>> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
>>> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
>>> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
>>> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
>>> completely untested.
>>
>> Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
>> n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
>
> Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
> a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
> than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
> *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.>
> Again, untested:
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
>
> static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> select_idx);
> +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> select_idx);
>
> #define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
>
> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, u64 val)
> * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
> * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
> */
> + kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
> if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
> kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
> kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
> @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
>
> - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
> + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
> + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
In create_perf_event(), has_chain_evtype() is used and a 64b sample
period would be chosen even if the counters are disjoined (since the odd
is disabled). We would need to use pmc_is_chained() instead.
With perf_events, the check of whether the odd register is enabled is
properly done (create_perf_event). Then I understand whenever there is a
change in enable state or type we delete the previous perf event and
re-create a new one. Enable state check just is missing for SW_INCR.
Some other questions:
- do we need a perf event to be created even if the counter is not
enabled? For instance on counter resets, create_perf_events get called.
- also actions are made for counters which are not implemented. loop
until ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS. Do you think it is valuable to have a
bitmask of supported counters stored before pmu readiness?
I can propose such changes if you think they are valuable.
Thanks
Eric
> /*
> * During promotion from !chained to chained we must ensure
> * the adjacent counter is stopped and its event destroyed
>
> What do you think?
>
> M.
Hi,
On 12/5/19 8:01 PM, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 12/5/19 3:52 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
>>>>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
>>>>> programmed as CHAIN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
>>>>> implement the 64b logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>>>
>>>>> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>>>>> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
>>>>> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
>>>> this. But see below:
>>>>
>>>>> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
>>>>> continue;
>>>>> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
>>>>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>>> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
>>>>> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
>>>>> - if (!reg)
>>>>> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> + if (chained) {
>>>>> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
>>>>> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
>>>>> + if (reg)
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
>>>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + /* mark an overflow */
>>>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
>>>> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
>>>>
>>>> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
>>>> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
>>>> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
>>>> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
>>>> completely untested.
>>>
>>> Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
>>> n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
>>
>> Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
>> a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
>> than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
>> *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.>
>> Again, untested:
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>> #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
>>
>> static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>> select_idx);
>> +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>> select_idx);
>>
>> #define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
>>
>> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>> * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
>> * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
>> */
>> + kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
>> if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
>> kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
>> kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
>> @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
>> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
>> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
>>
>> - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>> + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
>> + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>
> In create_perf_event(), has_chain_evtype() is used and a 64b sample
> period would be chosen even if the counters are disjoined (since the odd
> is disabled). We would need to use pmc_is_chained() instead.
>
> With perf_events, the check of whether the odd register is enabled is
> properly done (create_perf_event).
Hum that's not fully true. If we do not enable the CHAIN odd one but
only the event one, the correct 32b perf counter is created. But when
reading the odd reg after overflow we get the incremented value
(get_counter_value).
Thanks
Eric
Then I understand whenever there is a
> change in enable state or type we delete the previous perf event and
> re-create a new one. Enable state check just is missing for SW_INCR.
>
> Some other questions:
> - do we need a perf event to be created even if the counter is not
> enabled? For instance on counter resets, create_perf_events get called.
> - also actions are made for counters which are not implemented. loop
> until ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS. Do you think it is valuable to have a
> bitmask of supported counters stored before pmu readiness?
> I can propose such changes if you think they are valuable.
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>
>> /*
>> * During promotion from !chained to chained we must ensure
>> * the adjacent counter is stopped and its event destroyed
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> M.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:52:26PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
> > > > At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
> > > > boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
> > > > programmed as CHAIN.
> > > >
> > > > Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
> > > > implement the 64b logic.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU
> > > > counters")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > ?virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > > > ?1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > > > index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
> > > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > > > @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > > *vcpu, u64 val)
> > > >
> > > > ???? enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> > > > ???? for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
> > > > +??????? bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
> > > this. But see below:
> > >
> > > > ???????? if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> > > > ???????????? continue;
> > > > ???????? type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
> > > > @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct
> > > > kvm_vcpu
> > > > *vcpu, u64 val)
> > > > ???????????? reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
> > > > ???????????? reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> > > > ???????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
> > > > -??????????? if (!reg)
> > > > +??????????? if (reg) /* no overflow */
> > > > +??????????????? continue;
> > > > +??????????? if (chained) {
> > > > +??????????????? reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i +
> > > > 1) + 1;
> > > > +??????????????? reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> > > > +??????????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
> > > > +??????????????? if (reg)
> > > > +??????????????????? continue;
> > > > +??????????????? /* mark an overflow on high counter */
> > > > +??????????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
> > > > +??????????? } else {
> > > > +??????????????? /* mark an overflow */
> > > > ???????????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
> > > > +??????????? }
> > > > ???????? }
> > > > ???? }
> > > > ?}
> > >
> > > I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
> > > structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
> > >
> > > I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
> > > streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
> > > two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
> > > scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
> > > completely untested.
> >
> > Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
> > n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
Indeed - we don't want to indicate an overflow on a disabled counter.
>
> Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
> a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
> than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
> *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.
Does this mean that we don't care if the low counter is enabled or not
when deciding if the pair is chained?
I would find the code easier to follow if we had an explicit 'is the
high counter enabled here' check (at the point of deciding where to
put the overflow).
>
> Again, untested:
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
>
> static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> select_idx);
> +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> select_idx);
>
> #define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
>
> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> u64 val)
> * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
> * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
> */
> + kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
> if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
> kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
> kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
> @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
>
> - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
> + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
> + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
I.e. here we don't care what the state of enablement is for the low counter.
Also at present, this may break the following use-case
- User creates and uses a pair of chained counters
- User disables odd/high counter
- User reads values of both counters
- User rewrites CHAIN event to odd/high counter OR user re-enables just the even/low counter
- User reads value of both counters <- this may now different to the last read
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
> /*
> * During promotion from !chained to chained we must ensure
> * the adjacent counter is stopped and its event destroyed
>
> What do you think?
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
On 2019-12-06 15:21, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:52:26PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
>> > Hi Marc,
>> >
>> > On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > > Hi Eric,
>> > >
>> > > On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
>> > > > At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
>> > > > boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
>> > > > programmed as CHAIN.
>> > > >
>> > > > Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
>> > > > implement the 64b logic.
>> > > >
>> > > > Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU
>> > > > counters")
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> > > > ---
>> > > > virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>> > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> > > > index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
>> > > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> > > > @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct
>> kvm_vcpu
>> > > > *vcpu, u64 val)
>> > > >
>> > > > enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>> > > > for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
>> > > > + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1,
>> vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
>> > > > +
>> > >
>> > > I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than
>> open-coding
>> > > this. But see below:
>> > >
>> > > > if (!(val & BIT(i)))
>> > > > continue;
>> > > > type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
>> > > > @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct
>> > > > kvm_vcpu
>> > > > *vcpu, u64 val)
>> > > > reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) +
>> 1;
>> > > > reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>> > > > __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
>> > > > - if (!reg)
>> > > > + if (reg) /* no overflow */
>> > > > + continue;
>> > > > + if (chained) {
>> > > > + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i
>> +
>> > > > 1) + 1;
>> > > > + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>> > > > + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) =
>> reg;
>> > > > + if (reg)
>> > > > + continue;
>> > > > + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
>> > > > + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i +
>> 1);
>> > > > + } else {
>> > > > + /* mark an overflow */
>> > > > __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
>> > > > + }
>> > > > }
>> > > > }
>> > > > }
>> > >
>> > > I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be
>> better
>> > > structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
>> > >
>> > > I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
>> > > streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
>> > > two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
>> > > scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
>> > > completely untested.
>> >
>> > Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test
>> if the
>> > n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
>
> Indeed - we don't want to indicate an overflow on a disabled counter.
>
>
>>
>> Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
>> a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
>> than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
>> *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.
>
> Does this mean that we don't care if the low counter is enabled or
> not
> when deciding if the pair is chained?
>
> I would find the code easier to follow if we had an explicit 'is the
> high counter enabled here' check (at the point of deciding where to
> put the overflow).
Sure. But the point is that we're spreading that kind of checks all
over
the map, and that we don't have a way to even reason about the state of
a 64bit counter. Doesn't it strike you as being mildly broken?
>
>
>>
>> Again, untested:
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>> #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
>>
>> static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>> select_idx);
>> +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>> select_idx);
>>
>> #define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
>>
>> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu,
>> u64 val)
>> * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
>> * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
>> */
>> + kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
>> if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
>> kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
>> kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
>> @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
>> kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
>> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
>> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
>>
>> - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>> + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
>> + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>
> I.e. here we don't care what the state of enablement is for the low
> counter.
>
> Also at present, this may break the following use-case
>
> - User creates and uses a pair of chained counters
> - User disables odd/high counter
> - User reads values of both counters
> - User rewrites CHAIN event to odd/high counter OR user re-enables
> just the even/low counter
> - User reads value of both counters <- this may now different to the
> last read
Hey, I didn't say it was perfect ;-). But for sure we can't let the
PMU bitrot more than it already has, and I'm not sure this is heading
the right way.
I'm certainly going to push back on new PMU features until we can
properly
reason about 64bit counters as a top-level entity (as opposed to a
bunch
of discrete counters).
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:01:42PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 12/5/19 3:52 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> Hi Marc,
> >>
> >> On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> Hi Eric,
> >>>
> >>> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
> >>>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
> >>>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
> >>>> programmed as CHAIN.
> >>>>
> >>>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
> >>>> implement the 64b logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> ?virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >>>> ?1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> >>>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
> >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> >>>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
> >>>>
> >>>> ???? enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> >>>> ???? for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
> >>>> +??????? bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
> >>> this. But see below:
> >>>
> >>>> ???????? if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> >>>> ???????????? continue;
> >>>> ???????? type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
> >>>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
> >>>> ???????????? reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
> >>>> ???????????? reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> >>>> ???????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
> >>>> -??????????? if (!reg)
> >>>> +??????????? if (reg) /* no overflow */
> >>>> +??????????????? continue;
> >>>> +??????????? if (chained) {
> >>>> +??????????????? reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
> >>>> +??????????????? reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> >>>> +??????????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
> >>>> +??????????????? if (reg)
> >>>> +??????????????????? continue;
> >>>> +??????????????? /* mark an overflow on high counter */
> >>>> +??????????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
> >>>> +??????????? } else {
> >>>> +??????????????? /* mark an overflow */
> >>>> ???????????????? __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
> >>>> +??????????? }
> >>>> ???????? }
> >>>> ???? }
> >>>> ?}
> >>>
> >>> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
> >>> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
> >>>
> >>> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
> >>> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
> >>> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
> >>> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
> >>> completely untested.
> >>
> >> Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
> >> n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
> >
> > Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
> > a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
> > than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
> > *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.>
> > Again, untested:
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > ?#include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
> >
> > ?static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> > select_idx);
> > +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> > select_idx);
> >
> > ?#define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
> >
> > @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu, u64 val)
> > ????????? * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
> > ????????? * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
> > ????????? */
> > +??????? kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
> > ???????? if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
> > ???????????? kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
> > ???????????? kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
> > @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > ???? struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > ???? struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> >
> > -??? if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
> > +??? if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
> > +??????? kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>
> In create_perf_event(), has_chain_evtype() is used and a 64b sample
> period would be chosen even if the counters are disjoined (since the odd
> is disabled). We would need to use pmc_is_chained() instead.
So in this use-case, someone has configured a pair of chained counters
but only enabled the lower half. In this case we only create a 32bit backing
event (no PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED flag) - I guess this means the
perf event will trigger on 64bit period(?) despite the high counter being
disabled. The guest will see an interrupt in their disabled high counter.
This is a know limitation - see the comment "For
chained counters we only support overflow interrupts on the high counter"
Though upon looking at this it seems a little more broken. I guess where
both counters are enabled we want to overflow at 64bits and raise the
overflow to the high counter. When the high counter is disabled we want to
overflow on 32bits and raise the overflow to the low counter.
Perhaps something like the following would help:
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -585,15 +585,16 @@ static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
counter = kvm_pmu_get_pair_counter_value(vcpu, pmc);
- if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
+ if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
+ kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx + 1))
+
/**
* The initial sample period (overflow count) of an event. For
* chained counters we only support overflow interrupts on the
* high counter.
*/
attr.sample_period = (-counter) & GENMASK(63, 0);
- if (kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx + 1))
- attr.config1 |= PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED;
+ attr.config1 |= PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED;
event = perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&attr, -1, current,
kvm_pmu_perf_overflow,
It's not clear to me what is supposed to happen with overflow handling on the
low counter on chained counters (where the high counter is disabled).
>
> With perf_events, the check of whether the odd register is enabled is
> properly done (create_perf_event). Then I understand whenever there is a
> change in enable state or type we delete the previous perf event and
> re-create a new one. Enable state check just is missing for SW_INCR.
>
> Some other questions:
> - do we need a perf event to be created even if the counter is not
> enabled? For instance on counter resets, create_perf_events get called.
That would suggest we create and destroy them each time the guest enables
and disables the counters - I would expect them to do that a lot (every
context switch) - my assumption would be that the current approach has
less overhead for a running guest.
> - also actions are made for counters which are not implemented. loop
> until ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS. Do you think it is valuable to have a
> bitmask of supported counters stored before pmu readiness?
> I can propose such changes if you think they are valuable.
Are they? Many of the calls into this file come from
arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c where we apply a mask (value from
kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask) to ignore unsupported counters.
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>
> > ???????? /*
> > ????????? * During promotion from !chained to chained we must ensure
> > ????????? * the adjacent counter is stopped and its event destroyed
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > ??????? M.
>
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:35:03PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2019-12-06 15:21, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:52:26PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
> > > > Hi Marc,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be
> > > better
> > > > > structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
> > > > > streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
> > > > > two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
> > > > > scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
> > > > > completely untested.
> > > >
> > > > Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test
> > > if the
> > > > n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
> >
> > Indeed - we don't want to indicate an overflow on a disabled counter.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
> > > a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
> > > than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
> > > *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.
> >
> > Does this mean that we don't care if the low counter is enabled or not
> > when deciding if the pair is chained?
> >
> > I would find the code easier to follow if we had an explicit 'is the
> > high counter enabled here' check (at the point of deciding where to
> > put the overflow).
>
> Sure. But the point is that we're spreading that kind of checks all over
> the map, and that we don't have a way to even reason about the state of
> a 64bit counter. Doesn't it strike you as being mildly broken?
>
Yup! To the point where I can't trust the function names and have to look
at what the code does...
> > > @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
> > > kvm_vcpu
> > > *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > > struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > > struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> > >
> > > - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
> > > + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
> > > + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
> >
> > I.e. here we don't care what the state of enablement is for the low
> > counter.
> >
> > Also at present, this may break the following use-case
> >
> > - User creates and uses a pair of chained counters
> > - User disables odd/high counter
> > - User reads values of both counters
> > - User rewrites CHAIN event to odd/high counter OR user re-enables
> > just the even/low counter
> > - User reads value of both counters <- this may now different to the
> > last read
>
> Hey, I didn't say it was perfect ;-). But for sure we can't let the
> PMU bitrot more than it already has, and I'm not sure this is heading
> the right way.
I think we're aligned here. To me this code is becoming very fragile, difficult
for me to make sense of and is stretching the abstractions we've made. This is
why it is difficult to enhance it without breaking something. It's why I felt it
was safer to add 'an extra check' in the SWINCR than to risk touching something
that I didn't have the confidence I could be sure was correct.
>
> I'm certainly going to push back on new PMU features until we can properly
> reason about 64bit counters as a top-level entity (as opposed to a bunch
> of discrete counters).
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:01:42 +0100
Auger Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Eric,
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 12/5/19 3:52 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> Hi Marc,
> >>
> >> On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> Hi Eric,
> >>>
> >>> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
> >>>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
> >>>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
> >>>> programmed as CHAIN.
> >>>>
> >>>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
> >>>> implement the 64b logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> >>>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
> >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> >>>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
> >>>>
> >>>> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
> >>>> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
> >>>> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
> >>> this. But see below:
> >>>
> >>>> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> >>>> continue;
> >>>> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
> >>>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
> >>>> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
> >>>> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> >>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
> >>>> - if (!reg)
> >>>> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
> >>>> + continue;
> >>>> + if (chained) {
> >>>> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
> >>>> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
> >>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
> >>>> + if (reg)
> >>>> + continue;
> >>>> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
> >>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
> >>>> + } else {
> >>>> + /* mark an overflow */
> >>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
> >>> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
> >>>
> >>> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
> >>> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
> >>> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
> >>> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
> >>> completely untested.
> >>
> >> Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
> >> n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
> >
> > Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
> > a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
> > than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
> > *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.>
> > Again, untested:
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
> >
> > static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> > select_idx);
> > +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> > select_idx);
> >
> > #define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
> >
> > @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu, u64 val)
> > * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
> > * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
> > */
> > + kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
> > if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
> > kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
> > kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
> > @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> >
> > - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
> > + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
> > + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>
> In create_perf_event(), has_chain_evtype() is used and a 64b sample
> period would be chosen even if the counters are disjoined (since the odd
> is disabled). We would need to use pmc_is_chained() instead.
>
> With perf_events, the check of whether the odd register is enabled is
> properly done (create_perf_event). Then I understand whenever there is a
> change in enable state or type we delete the previous perf event and
> re-create a new one. Enable state check just is missing for SW_INCR.
Can you please respin this? I'd like to have it queued quickly, if at
all possible.
>
> Some other questions:
> - do we need a perf event to be created even if the counter is not
> enabled? For instance on counter resets, create_perf_events get called.
It shouldn't be necessary.
> - also actions are made for counters which are not implemented. loop
> until ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS. Do you think it is valuable to have a
> bitmask of supported counters stored before pmu readiness?
> I can propose such changes if you think they are valuable.
That would certainly be a performance optimization.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Hi Marc,
On 1/19/20 6:58 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:01:42 +0100
> Auger Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 12/5/19 3:52 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 2019-12-05 14:06, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/5/19 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2019-12-04 20:44, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>>> At the moment a SW_INCR counter always overflows on 32-bit
>>>>>> boundary, independently on whether the n+1th counter is
>>>>>> programmed as CHAIN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Check whether the SW_INCR counter is a 64b counter and if so,
>>>>>> implement the 64b logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 80f393a23be6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Support chained PMU counters")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>>>> index c3f8b059881e..7ab477db2f75 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -491,6 +491,8 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> enable = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0);
>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX; i++) {
>>>>>> + bool chained = test_bit(i >> 1, vcpu->arch.pmu.chained);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather you use kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained() rather than open-coding
>>>>> this. But see below:
>>>>>
>>>>>> if (!(val & BIT(i)))
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>> type = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + i)
>>>>>> @@ -500,8 +502,20 @@ void kvm_pmu_software_increment(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>>>>> reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) + 1;
>>>>>> reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>>>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i) = reg;
>>>>>> - if (!reg)
>>>>>> + if (reg) /* no overflow */
>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>> + if (chained) {
>>>>>> + reg = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) + 1;
>>>>>> + reg = lower_32_bits(reg);
>>>>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + i + 1) = reg;
>>>>>> + if (reg)
>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>> + /* mark an overflow on high counter */
>>>>>> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i + 1);
>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>> + /* mark an overflow */
>>>>>> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(i);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the whole function is a bit of a mess, and could be better
>>>>> structured to treat 64bit counters as a first class citizen.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm suggesting something along those lines, which tries to
>>>>> streamline things a bit and keep the flow uniform between the
>>>>> two word sizes. IMHO, it helps reasonning about it and gives
>>>>> scope to the ARMv8.5 full 64bit counters... It is of course
>>>>> completely untested.
>>>>
>>>> Looks OK to me as well. One remark though, don't we need to test if the
>>>> n+1th reg is enabled before incrementing it?
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think we should make sure that we don't flag
>>> a counter as being chained if the odd counter is disabled, rather
>>> than checking it here. As long as the odd counter is not chained
>>> *and* enabled, we shouldn't touch it.>
>>> Again, untested:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>> index cf371f643ade..47366817cd2a 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>> #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
>>>
>>> static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>>> select_idx);
>>> +static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>>> select_idx);
>>>
>>> #define PERF_ATTR_CFG1_KVM_PMU_CHAINED 0x1
>>>
>>> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu, u64 val)
>>> * For high counters of chained events we must recreate the
>>> * perf event with the long (64bit) attribute set.
>>> */
>>> + kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(vcpu, i);
>>> if (kvm_pmu_pmc_is_chained(pmc) &&
>>> kvm_pmu_idx_is_high_counter(i)) {
>>> kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, i);
>>> @@ -645,7 +647,8 @@ static void kvm_pmu_update_pmc_chained(struct
>>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
>>> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
>>> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
>>>
>>> - if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>>> + if (kvm_pmu_idx_has_chain_evtype(vcpu, pmc->idx) &&
>>> + kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, pmc->idx)) {
>>
>> In create_perf_event(), has_chain_evtype() is used and a 64b sample
>> period would be chosen even if the counters are disjoined (since the odd
>> is disabled). We would need to use pmc_is_chained() instead.
>>
>> With perf_events, the check of whether the odd register is enabled is
>> properly done (create_perf_event). Then I understand whenever there is a
>> change in enable state or type we delete the previous perf event and
>> re-create a new one. Enable state check just is missing for SW_INCR.
>
> Can you please respin this? I'd like to have it queued quickly, if at
> all possible.
Yes I am going to respin quickly.
Thanks
Eric
>
>>
>> Some other questions:
>> - do we need a perf event to be created even if the counter is not
>> enabled? For instance on counter resets, create_perf_events get called.
>
> It shouldn't be necessary.
>
>> - also actions are made for counters which are not implemented. loop
>> until ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS. Do you think it is valuable to have a
>> bitmask of supported counters stored before pmu readiness?
>> I can propose such changes if you think they are valuable.
>
> That would certainly be a performance optimization.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>