Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:15:54 +0000
From:   Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set PMCR_EL0.N for vCPU based
 on the associated PMU
Message-ID: <ZS2L6uIlUtkltyrF@linux.dev>
References: <20231009230858.3444834-1-rananta@google.com>
 <20231009230858.3444834-8-rananta@google.com>
 <b4739328-5dba-a3a6-54ef-2db2d34201d8@redhat.com>
 <CAJHc60zpH8Y8h72=jUbshGoqye20FaHRcsb+TFDxkk7rhJAUxQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60zpH8Y8h72=jUbshGoqye20FaHRcsb+TFDxkk7rhJAUxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:02:27PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 6:35 AM Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > u64 kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > -     return __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0);
> > > +     u64 pmcr = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) &
> > > +                     ~(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > > +
> > > +     return pmcr | ((u64)vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > index ff0f7095eaca..c750722fbe4a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > @@ -745,12 +745,8 @@ static u64 reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> > > {
> > >       u64 pmcr;
> > >
> > > -     /* No PMU available, PMCR_EL0 may UNDEF... */
> > > -     if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
> > > -             return 0;
> > > -
> > >       /* Only preserve PMCR_EL0.N, and reset the rest to 0 */
> > > -     pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) & (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > > +     pmcr = kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(vcpu) & (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> >
> > pmcr = ((u64)vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > Would that maybe make it more clear what is done here?
> >
> Since we require the entire PMCR register, and not just the PMCR.N
> field, I think using kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() would be technically
> correct, don't you think?

No, this isn't using the entire PMCR value, it is just grabbing
PMCR_EL0.N.

What's the point of doing this in the first place? The implementation of
kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() is populating PMCR_EL0.N using the VM-scoped value.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver