On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 12:05:32PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 16:51:46 +0000,
> Ricardo Koller <ricar...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 08:47:47AM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 04:38:20PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > The PMU architecture makes a subtle difference between a 64bit
> > > > counter and a counter that has a 64bit overflow. This is for example
> > > > the case of the cycle counter, which can generate an overflow on
> > > > a 32bit boundary if PMCR_EL0.LC==0 despite the accumulation being
> > > > done on 64 bits.
> > > >
> > > > Use this distinction in the few cases where it matters in the code,
> > > > as we will reuse this with PMUv3p5 long counters.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <m...@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> > > > index 69b67ab3c4bf..d050143326b5 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> > > > @@ -50,6 +50,11 @@ static u32 kvm_pmu_event_mask(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > * @select_idx: The counter index
> > > > */
> > > > static bool kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static bool kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> > > > select_idx)
> > > > {
> > > > return (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX &&
> > > > __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC);
> > > > @@ -57,7 +62,8 @@ static bool kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(struct kvm_vcpu
> > > > *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > > >
> > > > static bool kvm_pmu_counter_can_chain(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 idx)
> > > > {
> > > > - return (!(idx & 1) && (idx + 1) < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);
> > > > + return (!(idx & 1) && (idx + 1) < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX &&
> > > > + !kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow(vcpu, idx));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_pmc_to_vcpu(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> > > > @@ -97,7 +103,7 @@ u64 kvm_pmu_get_counter_value(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > u64 select_idx)
> > > > counter += perf_event_read_value(pmc->perf_event,
> > > > &enabled,
> > > > &running);
> > > >
> > > > - if (select_idx != ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX)
> > > > + if (!kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(vcpu, select_idx))
> > > > counter = lower_32_bits(counter);
> > > >
> > > > return counter;
> > > > @@ -423,6 +429,23 @@ static void kvm_pmu_counter_increment(struct
> > > > kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +/* Compute the sample period for a given counter value */
> > > > +static u64 compute_period(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx, u64
> > > > counter)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u64 val;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(vcpu, select_idx)) {
> > > > + if (!kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow(vcpu, select_idx))
> > > > + val = -(counter & GENMASK(31, 0));
> > >
> > > If I understand things correctly, this might be missing another mask:
> > >
> > > + if (!kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow(vcpu, select_idx)) {
> > > + val = -(counter & GENMASK(31, 0));
> > > + val &= GENMASK(31, 0);
> > > + } else {
> > >
> > > For example, if the counter is 64-bits wide, it overflows at 32-bits,
> > > and it is _one_ sample away from overflowing at 32-bits:
> > >
> > > 0x01010101_ffffffff
> > >
> > > Then "val = (-counter) & GENMASK(63, 0)" would return 0xffffffff_00000001.
> >
> > Sorry, this should be:
> >
> > Then "val = -(counter & GENMASK(31, 0))" would return
> > 0xffffffff_00000001.
> >
> > > But the right period is 0x00000000_00000001 (it's one sample away from
> > > overflowing).
>
> Yup, this is a bit bogus. But this can be simplified by falling back
> to the normal 32bit handling (on top of the pmu-unchained branch):
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> index d8ea39943086..24908400e190 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> @@ -461,14 +461,10 @@ static u64 compute_period(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64
> counter)
> {
> u64 val;
>
> - if (kvm_pmc_is_64bit(pmc)) {
> - if (!kvm_pmc_has_64bit_overflow(pmc))
> - val = -(counter & GENMASK(31, 0));
> - else
> - val = (-counter) & GENMASK(63, 0);
> - } else {
> + if (kvm_pmc_is_64bit(pmc) && kvm_pmc_has_64bit_overflow(pmc))
Great, thanks! Yes, that definitely makes things simpler ^.
> + val = (-counter) & GENMASK(63, 0);
> + else
> val = (-counter) & GENMASK(31, 0);
> - }
>
> return val;
> }
>
> which satisfies the requirement without any extra masking, and makes
> it plain that only a 64bit counter with 64bit overflow gets its period
> computed on the full 64bit, and that anyone else gets the 32bit
> truncation.
>
> I'll stash yet another patch on top and push it onto -next.
>
> Thanks!
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
