Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:22:50PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* > > initialized. > > I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt > > number (-1 > > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. > > > > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a > > better idea? > > > > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the > > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. > > > > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when > > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a > > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a > > true per-VCPU property? > >>> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI > >>> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are > >>> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both > >>> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let > >>> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. > >> > >> How about below vPMU Documentation? > >> > >> ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) > >> === > >> > >> Device types supported: > >> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 > >> > >> Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. > >> > >> Groups: > >> KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ > >> Attributes: > >> The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: > >> bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > >> values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | > BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index through > this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. > Is it fine? > > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > values: | reserved | vcpu_index | > > >> The irq_num describes the PMU overflow interrupt number for the > >> specified > >> vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one > >> VM the > >> interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. > > > > some formatting snafus that I expect come from pasting the text in an > > e-mail client. > > > >> > >> Errors: > >> -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported > > > > 'not yet supported' as in something we'll implement later, or as in you > > need to call this other function before you can access this state? > > > Since only when the group is not KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ, it will return > -ENXIO. So what about this? > > "-ENXIO: Unsupported attribute group" > better, -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 17/12/15 10:10, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2015/12/17 17:38, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 17/12/15 08:41, Shannon Zhao wrote: On 2015/12/17 16:33, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:22:50 +0800 >> Shannon Zhao wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> But in this case, you're >> returning an error if it is >> *not* initialized. >> I understand that in that case >> you cannot return an interrupt >> number (-1 >> would be weird), but returning >> -EBUSY feels even more weird. >> >> I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or >> something similar. Anyone having >> a better idea? >> >> ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add >> that to the >> Documentation clearly describing when this error >> code is used. >> >> By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to >> set the same value when >> you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems >> to me it's either a >> per-VM property (that you can store on the VM >> data structure) or it's a >> true per-VCPU property? >> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI >> or SPI. For PPI >> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for >> SPI they are >> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned >> to support both >> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at >> this moment and let >> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. >> >> How about below vPMU Documentation? >> >> ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) >> === >> >> Device types supported: >> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor >> Unit v3 >> >> Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. >> >> Groups: >> KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ >> Attributes: >> The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: >> bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | >> values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | >> BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index >> through >> this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. >> Is it fine? >> >> bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | >> values: | reserved | vcpu_index | >> Using the .addr field for something that is clearly not an address is >> rather odd. Is there any prior usage of that field for something that >> is not an address? I see this usage in vgic_attr_regs_access(). But if you prefer previous one, I'll use that. >> Ah, you're using the .addr field to point to a userspace value, not to >> carry the value itself! That'd be fine by me (even if I still prefer the >> original one), but I'd like others to chime in (I'm quite bad at >> defining userspace stuff...). > > Another reason I think is that it needs to pass the irq_num to user > space when calling get_attr. It could be passed via kvm_device_attr.addr > while can't be passed via kvm_device_attr.attr within current framework. That's a very good reason. Go for it. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 2015/12/17 17:38, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 17/12/15 08:41, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 2015/12/17 16:33, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:22:50 +0800 >>> >> Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> >> > > > On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: >>> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> >> But in this case, you're >>> >> returning an error if it is >>> >> *not* initialized. >>> >> I understand that in that case >>> >> you cannot return an interrupt >>> >> number (-1 >>> >> would be weird), but returning >>> >> -EBUSY feels even more weird. >>> >> >>> >> I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or >>> >> something similar. Anyone having >>> >> a better idea? >>> >> >>> >> ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add >>> >> that to the >>> >> Documentation clearly describing when this error >>> >> code is used. >>> >> >>> >> By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to >>> >> set the same value when >>> >> you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems >>> >> to me it's either a >>> >> per-VM property (that you can store on the VM >>> >> data structure) or it's a >>> >> true per-VCPU property? >>> >> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI >>> >> or SPI. For PPI >>> >> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for >>> >> SPI they are >>> >> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned >>> >> to support both >>> >> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at >>> >> this moment and let >>> >> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. > > How about below vPMU Documentation? > > ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) > === > > Device types supported: > KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor > Unit v3 > > Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. > > Groups: > KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ > Attributes: > The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | > BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index > through > this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. > Is it fine? > > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > values: | reserved | vcpu_index | >>> >> Using the .addr field for something that is clearly not an address is >>> >> rather odd. Is there any prior usage of that field for something that >>> >> is not an address? >> > >> > I see this usage in vgic_attr_regs_access(). But if you prefer previous >> > one, I'll use that. > Ah, you're using the .addr field to point to a userspace value, not to > carry the value itself! That'd be fine by me (even if I still prefer the > original one), but I'd like others to chime in (I'm quite bad at > defining userspace stuff...). Another reason I think is that it needs to pass the irq_num to user space when calling get_attr. It could be passed via kvm_device_attr.addr while can't be passed via kvm_device_attr.attr within current framework. Thanks, -- Shannon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 17/12/15 08:41, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2015/12/17 16:33, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:22:50 +0800 >> Shannon Zhao wrote: >> On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: Hi, On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> But in this case, you're returning an error if it is >> *not* initialized. >> I understand that in that case you cannot return an >> interrupt number (-1 >> would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more >> weird. >> >> I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone >> having a better idea? >> >> ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the >> Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. >> >> By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value >> when >> you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's >> either a >> per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or >> it's a >> true per-VCPU property? >> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For >> PPI >> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are >> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support >> both >> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and >> let >> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. How about below vPMU Documentation? ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) === Device types supported: KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. Groups: KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ Attributes: The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index through this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. Is it fine? bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | values: | reserved | vcpu_index | >> Using the .addr field for something that is clearly not an address is >> rather odd. Is there any prior usage of that field for something that >> is not an address? > > I see this usage in vgic_attr_regs_access(). But if you prefer previous > one, I'll use that. Ah, you're using the .addr field to point to a userspace value, not to carry the value itself! That'd be fine by me (even if I still prefer the original one), but I'd like others to chime in (I'm quite bad at defining userspace stuff...). Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 2015/12/17 16:33, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:22:50 +0800 > Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> > >> > >> > On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: >>> > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> > > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is >>> > > *not* initialized. >>> > > I understand that in that case you cannot return an >>> > > interrupt number (-1 >>> > > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more >>> > > weird. >>> > > >>> > > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone >>> > > having a better idea? >>> > > >>> > > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the >>> > > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. >>> > > >>> > > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same >>> > > value when >>> > > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's >>> > > either a >>> > > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) >>> > > or it's a >>> > > true per-VCPU property? > > >>> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For > > >>> PPI > > >>> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are > > >>> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support > > >>> both > > >>> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment > > >>> and let > > >>> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. > >> > >> How about below vPMU Documentation? > >> > >> ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) > >> === > >> > >> Device types supported: > >> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 > >> > >> Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. > >> > >> Groups: > >> KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ > >> Attributes: > >> The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: > >> bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > >> values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | >> > BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index through >> > this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. >> > Is it fine? >> > >> > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | >> > values: | reserved | vcpu_index | > Using the .addr field for something that is clearly not an address is > rather odd. Is there any prior usage of that field for something that > is not an address? I see this usage in vgic_attr_regs_access(). But if you prefer previous one, I'll use that. -- Shannon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:22:50 +0800 Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* > > initialized. > > I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt > > number (-1 > > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. > > > > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a > > better idea? > > > > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the > > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. > > > > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when > > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a > > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a > > true per-VCPU property? > >>> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI > >>> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are > >>> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both > >>> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let > >>> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. > >> > >> How about below vPMU Documentation? > >> > >> ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) > >> === > >> > >> Device types supported: > >> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 > >> > >> Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. > >> > >> Groups: > >> KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ > >> Attributes: > >> The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: > >> bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > >> values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | > BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index through > this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. > Is it fine? > > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > values: | reserved | vcpu_index | Using the .addr field for something that is clearly not an address is rather odd. Is there any prior usage of that field for something that is not an address? Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 2015/12/17 4:33, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* > initialized. > I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt number > (-1 > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. > > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a better > idea? > > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. > > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a > true per-VCPU property? >>> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI >>> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are >>> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both >>> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let >>> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. >> >> How about below vPMU Documentation? >> >> ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) >> === >> >> Device types supported: >> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 >> >> Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. >> >> Groups: >> KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ >> Attributes: >> The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: >> bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | >> values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | BTW, I change this Attribute to below format and pass vcpu_index through this Attribute while pass irq_num through kvm_device_attr.addr. Is it fine? bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | values: | reserved | vcpu_index | >> The irq_num describes the PMU overflow interrupt number for the >> specified >> vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one >> VM the >> interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. > > some formatting snafus that I expect come from pasting the text in an > e-mail client. > >> >> Errors: >> -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported > > 'not yet supported' as in something we'll implement later, or as in you > need to call this other function before you can access this state? > Since only when the group is not KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ, it will return -ENXIO. So what about this? "-ENXIO: Unsupported attribute group" Thanks, -- Shannon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:06:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* > >> > initialized. > >> > I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt > >> > number (-1 > >> > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. > >> > > >> > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a > >> > better idea? > >> > > >> > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the > >> > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. > >> > > >> > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when > >> > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a > >> > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a > >> > true per-VCPU property? > > This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI > > the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are > > different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both > > PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let > > users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. > > How about below vPMU Documentation? > > ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) > === > > Device types supported: > KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 > > Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. > > Groups: > KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ > Attributes: > The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | > The irq_num describes the PMU overflow interrupt number for the > specified > vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one > VM the > interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. some formatting snafus that I expect come from pasting the text in an e-mail client. > > Errors: > -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported 'not yet supported' as in something we'll implement later, or as in you need to call this other function before you can access this state? > -ENODEV: Getting the PMU overflow interrupt number while it's not set > -EBUSY: The PMU overflow interrupt is already set > -EINVAL: Invalid vcpu_index or irq_num supplied > > Otherwise looks good. Thanks, -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 2015/12/16 17:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 16/12/15 08:06, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* > initialized. > I understand that in that case you cannot return an > interrupt number (-1 > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. > > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having > a better idea? > > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. > > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or > it's a > true per-VCPU property? >>> >> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI >>> >> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are >>> >> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both >>> >> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let >>> >> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. >> > >> > How about below vPMU Documentation? >> > >> > ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) >> > === >> > >> > Device types supported: >> > KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 >> > >> > Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. >> > >> > Groups: >> > KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ >> > Attributes: >> > The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: >> > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | >> > values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | >> > The irq_num describes the PMU overflow interrupt number for the >> > specified >> > vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one >> > VM the >> > interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. >> > >> > Errors: >> > -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported >> > -ENODEV: Getting the PMU overflow interrupt number while it's not set >> > -EBUSY: The PMU overflow interrupt is already set >> > -EINVAL: Invalid vcpu_index or irq_num supplied >> > >> > > Let's add at least one comment that forbids two vcpus from getting the > same SPI. This is too common a mistake that we see in actual SoCs, and I > don't want to see it replicated in VMs... Ok, will add. Thanks, -- Shannon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 16/12/15 08:06, Shannon Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* initialized. I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt number (-1 would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a better idea? ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a true per-VCPU property? >> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI >> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are >> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both >> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let >> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. > > How about below vPMU Documentation? > > ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) > === > > Device types supported: > KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 > > Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. > > Groups: > KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ > Attributes: > The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: > bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | > values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | > The irq_num describes the PMU overflow interrupt number for the > specified > vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one > VM the > interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. > > Errors: > -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported > -ENODEV: Getting the PMU overflow interrupt number while it's not set > -EBUSY: The PMU overflow interrupt is already set > -EINVAL: Invalid vcpu_index or irq_num supplied > > Let's add at least one comment that forbids two vcpus from getting the same SPI. This is too common a mistake that we see in actual SoCs, and I don't want to see it replicated in VMs... Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
Hi, On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> > But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* >> > initialized. >> > I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt number >> > (-1 >> > would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird. >> > >> > I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a better >> > idea? >> > >> > ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the >> > Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used. >> > >> > By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when >> > you can't do anything per VCPU anyway? It seems to me it's either a >> > per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a >> > true per-VCPU property? > This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI > the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are > different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both > PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let > users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one. How about below vPMU Documentation? ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU) === Device types supported: KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3 Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API. Groups: KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ Attributes: The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values: bits: | 63 32 | 31 0 | values: | vcpu_index | irq_num | The irq_num describes the PMU overflow interrupt number for the specified vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one VM the interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. Errors: -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported -ENODEV: Getting the PMU overflow interrupt number while it's not set -EBUSY: The PMU overflow interrupt is already set -EINVAL: Invalid vcpu_index or irq_num supplied -- Shannon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 2015/12/16 4:47, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:59:31PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > On 15/12/15 15:50, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 2015/12/15 23:33, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 15/12/15 08:49, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> > From: Shannon Zhao
>> >
>> > Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU.
>> > Implement
>> > the kvm_device_ops for it.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 16
>> > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 +
>> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>> > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
>> > virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c| 115
>> > ++
>> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
>> > 6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
>> > create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> > b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 000..5121f1f
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
>> > +ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
>> > +===
>> > +
>> > +Device types supported:
>> > + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
>> > +
>> > +Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
>> > +
>> > +Groups:
>> > + KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
>> > + Attributes:
>> > +A value describing the interrupt number of PMU overflow
>> > interrupt. This
>> > +interrupt should be a PPI.
>> > +
>> > + Errors:
>> > +-EINVAL: Value set is out of the expected range (from 16 to
>> > 31)
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> > b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> > index 2d4ca4b..568afa2 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> > @@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
>> > #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL4
>> > #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT 0
>> >
>> > +/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
>> > +#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ 0
>> > +
>> > /* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
>> > #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 24
>> > #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK0xff
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> > index c923350..608dea6 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>> > @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
>> > extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
>> > extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
>> > extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
>> > +extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
>> >
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> > index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
>> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> > @@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
>> > #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLICKVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
>> > KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
>> > #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
>> > + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
>> > +#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
>> > KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
>> > };
>> >
>> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> > index d113ee4..1965d0d 100644
>> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> > #include
>> > #include
>> > #include
>> > +#include
>> > #include
>> > #include
>> > #include
>> > @@ -357,3 +358,117 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct
>> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
>> >
>> > pmc->perf_event = event;
>> > }
>> > +
>> > +static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> > +{
>> > + return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:59:31PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 15/12/15 15:50, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2015/12/15 23:33, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 15/12/15 08:49, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> From: Shannon Zhao
>
> Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
> the kvm_device_ops for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao
> ---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 16
> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 +
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c| 115
> ++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
> 6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..5121f1f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
> +===
> +
> +Device types supported:
> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
> +
> +Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
> +
> +Groups:
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
> + Attributes:
> +A value describing the interrupt number of PMU overflow interrupt.
> This
> +interrupt should be a PPI.
> +
> + Errors:
> +-EINVAL: Value set is out of the expected range (from 16 to 31)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 2d4ca4b..568afa2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL 4
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT0
>
> +/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
> +#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ 0
> +
> /* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 24
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK 0xff
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index c923350..608dea6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
> +extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
> +KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
> +#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index d113ee4..1965d0d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> @@ -357,3 +358,117 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
>
> pmc->perf_event = event;
> }
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(struct kvm *kvm, int *irq, bool
> is_set)
> +{
> +int j;
> +struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +
> +kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
> +struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> +
> +if (!is_set) {
> +if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
> +return -EBUSY;
> >> Returning -EBUSY is a bit odd. Maybe -EINVAL? But this seems weird
> >> anyway. Actually, why would you return an error in this case?
> >>
> > While this is a unexpected operation from user space and it's already
> > initialized and working, so I think it should return an error to user
> > and
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:59:31PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 15/12/15 15:50, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2015/12/15 23:33, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 15/12/15 08:49, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> From: Shannon Zhao
>
> Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
> the kvm_device_ops for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao
> ---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 16
> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 +
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c| 115
> ++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
> 6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..5121f1f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
> +===
> +
> +Device types supported:
> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
> +
> +Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
> +
> +Groups:
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
> + Attributes:
> +A value describing the interrupt number of PMU overflow interrupt.
> This
> +interrupt should be a PPI.
> +
> + Errors:
> +-EINVAL: Value set is out of the expected range (from 16 to 31)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 2d4ca4b..568afa2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL 4
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT0
>
> +/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
> +#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ 0
> +
> /* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 24
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK 0xff
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index c923350..608dea6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
> +extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
> +KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
> +#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index d113ee4..1965d0d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> @@ -357,3 +358,117 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
>
> pmc->perf_event = event;
> }
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(struct kvm *kvm, int *irq, bool
> is_set)
> +{
> +int j;
> +struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +
> +kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
> +struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> +
> +if (!is_set) {
> +if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
> +return -EBUSY;
> >> Returning -EBUSY is a bit odd. Maybe -EINVAL? But this seems weird
> >> anyway. Actually, why would you return an error in this case?
> >>
> > While this is a unexpected operation from user space and it's already
> > initialized and working, so I think it should return an error to user
> > and
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 15/12/15 15:50, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>
>
> On 2015/12/15 23:33, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 15/12/15 08:49, Shannon Zhao wrote:
From: Shannon Zhao
Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
the kvm_device_ops for it.
Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao
---
Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 16
arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 +
include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c| 115
++
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000..5121f1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
+===
+
+Device types supported:
+ KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
+
+Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
+
+Groups:
+ KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
+ Attributes:
+A value describing the interrupt number of PMU overflow interrupt.
This
+interrupt should be a PPI.
+
+ Errors:
+-EINVAL: Value set is out of the expected range (from 16 to 31)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
index 2d4ca4b..568afa2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
@@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
#define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL 4
#define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT 0
+/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
+#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ 0
+
/* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
#define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT24
#define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK 0xff
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index c923350..608dea6 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
+extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
+ KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
+#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
};
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
index d113ee4..1965d0d 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
#include
#include
#include
@@ -357,3 +358,117 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu, u64 data,
pmc->perf_event = event;
}
+
+static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1;
+}
+
+static int kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(struct kvm *kvm, int *irq, bool is_set)
+{
+ int j;
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+
+ kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
+ struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
+
+ if (!is_set) {
+ if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
+ return -EBUSY;
>> Returning -EBUSY is a bit odd. Maybe -EINVAL? But this seems weird
>> anyway. Actually, why would you return an error in this case?
>>
> While this is a unexpected operation from user space and it's already
> initialized and working, so I think it should return an error to user
> and tell user that it's already initialized and working (this should
> mean "busy" ?).
But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* initialized.
I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt number (-1
would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird.
I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a better idea?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is n
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 2015/12/15 23:33, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 15/12/15 08:49, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>From: Shannon Zhao
>
>Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
>the kvm_device_ops for it.
>
>Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao
>---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 16
> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 +
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c| 115
++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
> 6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>
>diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>new file mode 100644
>index 000..5121f1f
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
>+ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
>+===
>+
>+Device types supported:
>+ KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
>+
>+Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
>+
>+Groups:
>+ KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
>+ Attributes:
>+A value describing the interrupt number of PMU overflow interrupt. This
>+interrupt should be a PPI.
>+
>+ Errors:
>+-EINVAL: Value set is out of the expected range (from 16 to 31)
>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>index 2d4ca4b..568afa2 100644
>--- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>+++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>@@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL 4
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT 0
>
>+/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
>+#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ0
>+
> /* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT24
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK 0xff
>diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>index c923350..608dea6 100644
>--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>@@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
>+extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>@@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
>KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
>+ KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
>+#defineKVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
>KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
>diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>index d113ee4..1965d0d 100644
>--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
>+#include
> #include
> #include
> #include
>@@ -357,3 +358,117 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu, u64 data,
>
>pmc->perf_event = event;
> }
>+
>+static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>+{
>+ return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1;
>+}
>+
>+static int kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(struct kvm *kvm, int *irq, bool is_set)
>+{
>+ int j;
>+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>+
>+ kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
>+ struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
>+
>+ if (!is_set) {
>+ if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
>+ return -EBUSY;
Returning -EBUSY is a bit odd. Maybe -EINVAL? But this seems weird
anyway. Actually, why would you return an error in this case?
While this is a unexpected operation from user space and it's already
initialized and working, so I think it should return an error to user
and tell user that it's already initialized and working (this should
mean "busy" ?).
--
Shannon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
On 15/12/15 08:49, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> From: Shannon Zhao
>
> Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
> the kvm_device_ops for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao
> ---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 16
> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 +
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c| 115
> ++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
> 6 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..5121f1f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
> +===
> +
> +Device types supported:
> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
> +
> +Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
> +
> +Groups:
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
> + Attributes:
> +A value describing the interrupt number of PMU overflow interrupt. This
> +interrupt should be a PPI.
> +
> + Errors:
> +-EINVAL: Value set is out of the expected range (from 16 to 31)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 2d4ca4b..568afa2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL4
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT 0
>
> +/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
> +#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ 0
> +
> /* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 24
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK0xff
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index c923350..608dea6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
> +extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLICKVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
> +#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index d113ee4..1965d0d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> @@ -357,3 +358,117 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, u64 data,
>
> pmc->perf_event = event;
> }
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(struct kvm *kvm, int *irq, bool is_set)
> +{
> + int j;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> +
> + if (!is_set) {
> + if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
> + return -EBUSY;
Returning -EBUSY is a bit odd. Maybe -EINVAL? But this seems weird
anyway. Actually, why would you return an error in this case?
> +
> + *irq = pmu->irq_num;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + kvm_debug("Set kvm ARM PMU irq: %d\n", *irq);
> + pmu->irq_num = *irq;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + struct kvm *kvm = dev->kvm;
> +
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> +
> + memset(pmu, 0, sizeof(*pmu));
> + kvm_pmu_vcpu_reset(vcpu);
> + pmu->irq_num = -1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_arm_pmu_destroy(struct kvm_device *dev)
> +{
> + kfree(dev);
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> +
