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;
Message-ID: <a065d948-3b9c-86bf-4a10-45d9c47e7ea1@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:15:10 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 6/7] arm64/perf: Add BRBE driver
Content-Language: en-US
To:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        acme@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com
References: <20221107062514.2851047-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20221107062514.2851047-7-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <1d06f05c-0e7f-7648-6b1b-b78e999bc65f@arm.com>
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d06f05c-0e7f-7648-6b1b-b78e999bc65f@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/16/22 22:12, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/11/2022 06:25, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> +static void perf_branch_to_brbcr(struct pmu_hw_events *cpuc, int branch_type)
>> +{
>> +	cpuc->brbcr = (BRBCR_EL1_CC | BRBCR_EL1_MPRED);
>> +
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER)
>> +		cpuc->brbcr |= BRBCR_EL1_E0BRE;
>> +
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_NO_CYCLES)
>> +		cpuc->brbcr &= ~BRBCR_EL1_CC;
>> +
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_NO_FLAGS)
>> +		cpuc->brbcr &= ~BRBCR_EL1_MPRED;
>> +
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL)
>> +		cpuc->brbcr |= BRBCR_EL1_E1BRE;
>> +	else
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The exception and exception return branches could be
>> +	 * captured only when the event has necessary privilege
>> +	 * indicated via branch type PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL,
>> +	 * which has been ascertained in generic perf. Please
>> +	 * refer perf_copy_attr() for more details.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY) {
>> +		cpuc->brbcr |= BRBCR_EL1_EXCEPTION;
>> +		cpuc->brbcr |= BRBCR_EL1_ERTN;
> 
> Because this comes after the PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL check, it's
> impossible to get syscall records from userspace. When you enable kernel
> branch records, the buffer always fills up before it gets to userspace.

Just to summerize.

System call [user_addr -> kernel_addr] and return [kernel_addr -> user_addr]
records are impossible to be captured, because

- Without PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL, BRBCR_EL1_EXCEPTION/ERTN are not set
- With PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL, buffer fills up with in kernel branches

Did you try with latest fix, that clears the paused BRBE after reading branch
records during PMU interrupt ? That fix creates much more samples than before.

> 
> Can you move this to the top so that it can be set if either
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER or PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL is set. The

Why should they depend on privilege filters i.e PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER/KERNEL
rather than just branch filters PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY/ANY_CALL/ANY_RETURN ?

> hardware already handles the security by giving partial records with the
> kernel part zeroed out so I don't think the driver needs to add any
> additional rules other than setting BRBCR_EL1_E1BRE or BRBCR_EL1_E0BRE.

Basically BRBCR_EL1_EXCEPTION/BRBCR_EL1_ERTN should be treated like any other
branch filter rather than privilege filters as is the case now ?

> 
> For example I moved it to the top, removed the return below and then I
> get syscall partial records:
> 
> ....  5: 0000000000745d0c -> 0000000000000000 0 cycles  P   9fbfbfbf SYSCALL
> 
> I also get ERETS but with only the userspace part set:
> 
> .....  4: 0000000000000000 -> 0000000000745d10 0 cycles  P   9fbfbfbf ERET
But with both user and kernel privilege filters being set, these should have
been complete branch records containing both user and kernel addresses ?

> 
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL)
>> +		cpuc->brbcr |= BRBCR_EL1_EXCEPTION;
>> +
>> +	if (branch_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN)
>> +		cpuc->brbcr |= BRBCR_EL1_ERTN;
>> +}
>> +

[....]