Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:10:52 +0000
Message-ID: <865zi8imr7.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/18] perf: arm_spe: Handle guest/host exclusion flags
In-Reply-To: <20191220143025.33853-16-andrew.murray@arm.com>
References: <20191220143025.33853-1-andrew.murray@arm.com>
        <20191220143025.33853-16-andrew.murray@arm.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/26
 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:30:22 +0000,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> A side effect of supporting the SPE in guests is that we prevent the
> host from collecting data whilst inside a guest thus creating a black-out
> window. This occurs because instead of emulating the SPE, we share it
> with our guests.
> 
> Let's accurately describe our capabilities by using the perf exclude
> flags to prevent !exclude_guest and exclude_host flags from being used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> index 2d24af4cfcab..3703dbf459de 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> @@ -679,6 +679,9 @@ static int arm_spe_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
>  	if (attr->exclude_idle)
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
> +	if (!attr->exclude_guest || attr->exclude_host)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +

I have the opposite approach. If the host decides to profile the
guest, why should that be denied? If there is a black hole, it should
take place in the guest. Today, the host does expect this to work, and
there is no way that we unconditionally allow it to regress.

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.