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: <290b577c-4740-d2e2-d236-c8bbe2f907b9@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 11:13:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 05/10] arm64/perf: Add branch stack support in ARMV8
 PMU
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230531040428.501523-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20230531040428.501523-6-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <ZH3PCqYt/UzoiVx3@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <ba396c30-6719-1dfb-77c2-9f7e1715b57c@arm.com>
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba396c30-6719-1dfb-77c2-9f7e1715b57c@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 06/06/2023 11:34, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/5/23 17:35, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:34:23AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This enables support for branch stack sampling event in ARMV8 PMU, checking
>>> has_branch_stack() on the event inside 'struct arm_pmu' callbacks. Although
>>> these branch stack helpers armv8pmu_branch_XXXXX() are just dummy functions
>>> for now. While here, this also defines arm_pmu's sched_task() callback with
>>> armv8pmu_sched_task(), which resets the branch record buffer on a sched_in.
>>
>> This generally looks good, but I have a few comments below.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +static inline bool armv8pmu_branch_valid(struct perf_event *event)
>>> +{
>>> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!has_branch_stack(event));
>>> +	return false;
>>> +}
>>
>> IIUC this is for validating the attr, so could we please name this
>> armv8pmu_branch_attr_valid() ?
> 
> Sure, will change the name and updated call sites.
> 
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +static int branch_records_alloc(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct pmu_hw_events *events;
>>> +	int cpu;
>>> +
>>> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {

Shouldn't this be supported_pmus ? i.e.
	for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {


>>> +		events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
>>> +		events->branches = kzalloc(sizeof(struct branch_records), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +		if (!events->branches)
>>> +			return -ENOMEM;

Do we need to free the allocated branches already ?

>>> +	}


May be:
	int ret = 0;

	for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {
		events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
		events->branches = kzalloc(sizeof(struct 		branch_records), GFP_KERNEL);
		
		if (!events->branches) {
			ret = -ENOMEM;
			break;
		}
	}

	if (!ret)
		return 0;

	for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {
		events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
		if (!events->branches)
			break;
		kfree(events->branches);
	}
	return ret;
	
>>> +	return 0;
>>
>> This leaks memory if any allocation fails, and the next patch replaces this
>> code entirely.
> 
> Okay.
> 
>>
>> Please add this once in a working state. Either use the percpu allocation
>> trick in the next patch from the start, or have this kzalloc() with a
>> corresponding kfree() in an error path.
> 
> I will change branch_records_alloc() as suggested in the next patch's thread
> and fold those changes here in this patch.
> 
>>
>>>   }
>>>   
>>>   static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>>> @@ -1145,12 +1162,24 @@ static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>>>   	};
>>>   	int ret;
>>>   
>>> +	ret = armv8pmu_private_alloc(cpu_pmu);
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		return ret;
>>> +
>>>   	ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus,
>>>   				    __armv8pmu_probe_pmu,
>>>   				    &probe, 1);
>>>   	if (ret)
>>>   		return ret;
>>>   
>>> +	if (arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu)) {
>>> +		ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu);
>>> +		if (ret)
>>> +			return ret;
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		armv8pmu_private_free(cpu_pmu);
>>> +	}
>>
>> I see from the next patch that "private" is four ints, so please just add that
>> to struct arm_pmu under an ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_BRBE. That'll simplify this, and
>> if we end up needing more space in future we can consider factoring it out.
> 
> struct arm_pmu {
> 	........................................
>          /* Implementation specific attributes */
>          void            *private;
> }
> 
> private pointer here creates an abstraction for given pmu implementation
> to hide attribute details without making it known to core arm pmu layer.
> Although adding ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_BRBE solves the problem as mentioned
> above, it does break that abstraction. Currently arm_pmu layer is aware
> about 'branch records' but not about BRBE in particular which the driver
> adds later on. I suggest we should not break that abstraction.
> 
> Instead a global 'static struct brbe_hw_attr' in drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c
> can be initialized into arm_pmu->private during armv8pmu_branch_probe(),
> which will also solve the allocation-free problem. Also similar helpers
> armv8pmu_task_ctx_alloc()/free() could be defined to manage task context
> cache i.e arm_pmu->pmu.task_ctx_cache independently.
> 
> But now armv8pmu_task_ctx_alloc() can be called after pmu probe confirms
> to have arm_pmu->has_branch_stack.
> 
>>
>>> +
>>>   	return probe.present ? 0 : -ENODEV;
>>>   }
>>
>> It also seems odd to ceck probe.present *after* checking
>> arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported().
> 
> I will reorganize as suggested below.
> 
>>
>> With the allocation removed I think this can be written more clearly as:
>>
>> | static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>> | {
>> |         struct armv8pmu_probe_info probe = {
>> |                 .pmu = cpu_pmu,
>> |                 .present = false,
>> |         };
>> |         int ret;
>> |
>> |         ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus,
>> |                                     __armv8pmu_probe_pmu,
>> |                                     &probe, 1);
>> |         if (ret)
>> |                 return ret; > |
>> |         if (!probe.present)
>> |                 return -ENODEV;
>> |
>> |         if (arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu))
>> |                 ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu);
>> |
>> |         return ret;
>> | }

Could we not simplify this as below and keep the abstraction, since we
already have it ?

 >> | static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
 >> | {
 >> |         struct armv8pmu_probe_info probe = {
 >> |                 .pmu = cpu_pmu,
 >> |                 .present = false,
 >> |         };
 >> |         int ret;
 >> |
 >> |         ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus,
 >> |                                     __armv8pmu_probe_pmu,
 >> |                                     &probe, 1);
 >> |         if (ret)
 >> |                 return ret;
 >> |         if (!probe.present)
 >> |                 return -ENODEV;
 >> |
 >> |  	     if (!arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu))
 >> |		     return 0;
 >> |
 >> |	     ret = armv8pmu_private_alloc(cpu_pmu);
 >> |	     if (ret)
 >> |		 return ret;
 >> |		
 >> |	      ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu);
 >> |	      if (ret)
 >> |		  armv8pmu_private_free(cpu_pmu);
 >> |		
 >> |        return ret;
 >> | }


Suzuki