Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220704150514.48816-1-elver@google.com> <20220704150514.48816-2-elver@google.com>
 <Ytl9L0Zn1PVuL1cB@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <Ytl9L0Zn1PVuL1cB@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jul 2022 13:00:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMk+p1bAEKe6Em6n0_6_1O2Aco7g9v1hcVj54hKdGJ4ug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] perf/hw_breakpoint: Add KUnit test for
 constraints accounting
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 18:22, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marco,
>
> [adding Will]
>
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Add KUnit test for hw_breakpoint constraints accounting, with various
> > interesting mixes of breakpoint targets (some care was taken to catch
> > interesting corner cases via bug-injection).
> >
> > The test cannot be built as a module because it requires access to
> > hw_breakpoint_slots(), which is not inlinable or exported on all
> > architectures.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
>
> As mentioned on IRC, I'm seeing these tests fail on arm64 when applied atop
> v5.19-rc7:
>
> | TAP version 14
> | 1..1
> |     # Subtest: hw_breakpoint
> |     1..9
> |     ok 1 - test_one_cpu
> |     ok 2 - test_many_cpus
> |     # test_one_task_on_all_cpus: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 3 - test_one_task_on_all_cpus
> |     # test_two_tasks_on_all_cpus: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 4 - test_two_tasks_on_all_cpus
> |     # test_one_task_on_one_cpu: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 5 - test_one_task_on_one_cpu
> |     # test_one_task_mixed: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 6 - test_one_task_mixed
> |     # test_two_tasks_on_one_cpu: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 7 - test_two_tasks_on_one_cpu
> |     # test_two_tasks_on_one_all_cpus: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 8 - test_two_tasks_on_one_all_cpus
> |     # test_task_on_all_and_one_cpu: ASSERTION FAILED at kernel/events/hw_breakpoint_test.c:70
> |     Expected IS_ERR(bp) to be false, but is true
> |     not ok 9 - test_task_on_all_and_one_cpu
> | # hw_breakpoint: pass:2 fail:7 skip:0 total:9
> | # Totals: pass:2 fail:7 skip:0 total:9
>
> ... which seems to be becasue arm64 currently forbids per-task
> breakpoints/watchpoints in hw_breakpoint_arch_parse(), where we have:
>
>         /*
>          * Disallow per-task kernel breakpoints since these would
>          * complicate the stepping code.
>          */
>         if (hw->ctrl.privilege == AARCH64_BREAKPOINT_EL1 && bp->hw.target)
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
> ... which has been the case since day one in commit:
>
>   478fcb2cdb2351dc ("arm64: Debugging support")
>
> I'm not immediately sure what would be necessary to support per-task kernel
> breakpoints, but given a lot of that state is currently per-cpu, I imagine it's
> invasive.

Thanks for investigating - so the test is working as intended. ;-)

However it's a shame that arm64's support is limited. And what Will
said about possible removal/rework of arm64 hw_breakpoint support
doesn't sound too reassuring.

We will definitely want to revisit arm64's hw_breakpoint support in future.

Thanks,
-- Marco