Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <ZS6_tdkS6GyNlt4l@linux.dev> <CAJHc60w-CsqdYX8JG-CRutwg0UyWmvk1TyoR-y9JBV_mqWUVKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZS7OLRy6BwJljOV8@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <ZS7OLRy6BwJljOV8@linux.dev>
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:45:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHc60w5oipHoOVbnYv_9zbHZbXZQRPUVX0+5nxD5HUjp5pA6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set PMCR_EL0.N for vCPU based
 on the associated PMU
To:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:11=E2=80=AFAM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.d=
ev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:25:50AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:09=E2=80=AFAM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@lin=
ux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:58:08AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrot=
e:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:52=E2=80=AFPM 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 implem=
entation of
> > > > > > > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() is populating PMCR_EL0.N using the VM-sc=
oped value.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess originally the change replaced read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) wi=
th
> > > > > > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(vcpu) to maintain consistency with others.
> > > > > > But if you and Sebastian feel that it's an overkill and directl=
y
> > > > > > 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 t=
he
> > > > 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, PM=
CR_EL0),
> > >     *masks out* the N field and re-initializes it with vcpu->kvm->arc=
h.pmcr_n
> > >
> > > Why do you need (1) if you do (2)?
> > >
> > Okay, I see what you mean now. In that case, let reset_pmcr():
> > - Initialize 'pmcr' using  vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n
> > - Set ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC as appropriate in 'pmcr'
> > - Write 'pmcr' to the vcpu reg
> >
> > From here on out, kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() would read off of this
> > initialized value, unless of course, userspace updates the pmcr.n.
> > Is this the flow that you were suggesting?
>
> Just squash this in:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index d1db1f292645..7b54c7843bef 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -743,10 +743,8 @@ static u64 reset_pmselr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const=
 struct sys_reg_desc *r)
>
>  static u64 reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *=
r)
>  {
> -       u64 pmcr;
> +       u64 pmcr =3D 0;
>
> -       /* Only preserve PMCR_EL0.N, and reset the rest to 0 */
> -       pmcr =3D kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(vcpu) & (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARM=
V8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
>         if (!kvm_supports_32bit_el0())
>                 pmcr |=3D ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC;
>
>
Oh, I get the redundancy that you were suggesting to get rid of!
Thanks for the diff. It helped.

- Raghavendra
> --
> Thanks,
> Oliver