Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:09:09 +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: <ZS6_tdkS6GyNlt4l@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>
 <ZS2L6uIlUtkltyrF@linux.dev>
 <CAJHc60wvMSHuLuRsZJOn7+r7LxZ661xEkDfqxGHed5Y+95Fxeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZS4hGL5RIIuI1KOC@linux.dev>
 <CAJHc60zQb0akx2Opbh3_Q8JShBC_9NFNvtAE+bPNi9QqXUGncA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60zQb0akx2Opbh3_Q8JShBC_9NFNvtAE+bPNi9QqXUGncA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:58:08AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:52 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 02:35:52PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > I guess originally the change replaced read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) with
> > > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(vcpu) to maintain consistency with others.
> > > But if you and Sebastian feel that it's an overkill and directly
> > > getting the value via vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n is more readable, I'm
> > > happy to make the change.
> >
> > No, I'd rather you delete the line where PMCR_EL0.N altogether.
> > reset_pmcr() tries to initialize the field, but your
> > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() winds up replacing it with pmcr_n.
> >
> I didn't get this comment. We still do initialize pmcr, but using the
> pmcr.n read via kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() instead of the actual system
> register.

You have two bits of code trying to do the exact same thing:

 1) reset_pmcr() initializes __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) with the N
    field set up.

 2) kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() takes whatever is in __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0),
    *masks out* the N field and re-initializes it with vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n

Why do you need (1) if you do (2)?

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver