From: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <alex.bennee@linaro.org>, <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <peterz@infradead.org>, <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, <robh@kernel.org>, <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, <pawel.moll@arm.com>, <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:17:43 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170113121743.31e09c7242d500d41469a068@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170113170307.GK3253@arm.com> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:03:07 +0000 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:40:42AM -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:03:48 +0000 > > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > +#define DRVNAME "arm_spe_pmu" > > > > PMU is implied. "arm_spe"? > > As stated before, I'm going for consistency here. me too, but apparently under the user-visible interface domain rather than the driver source path domain. > Is it causing any > real issues on the tooling side? Intel has a consistent "intel_pt", "intel_bts", and 'pmu' occurs nowhere in their nomenclature. Whether good or bad, we currently have "cs_etm". This patch now gives us "arm_spe_pmu". I'm just trying to save the suffix consistency for now, esp. since IDK how amenable "cs_etm" is to change, and 'perf list' calls things "PMU event"s anyway. I think the root cause might be the device tree node's "arm,arm-spe-pmu-v1" compatiblity string, which I also find a bit self-redundant ("arm,arm-"), but I'm not familiar with what's being denoted there either (e.g., if the latter 'arm-' is an arch reference, then SPE's might be 'armv8'?). The device tree node isn't exposed to the user, however. > > > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > > > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) { > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + } > > > + > > > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event); > > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) && > > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) && > > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) && > > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > Please insert pr_* statements before blindly returning errors before a > > better facility becomes available. > > That was discussed in the thread I linked to last time: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/661 ok, thanks for pinpointing the exact message this time. > and there are good reasons not to add those prints. Processing that message (indentations are now quoting Peter Zijlstra): > Not really. That is something that's limited to root. Whereas the > problem is very much wider than that. For the purposes of the SPE driver discussion, I'm ok limiting the context of using the SPE as root. > If you set one bit wrong in the pretty large perf_event_attr you've got > a fair chance of getting -EINVAL on trying to create the event. Good > luck finding what you did wrong. yes, this is the problem, and the SPE introduces a whole new set of validity requirements that should be being communicated clearly, e.g., its restrictive event frequency specification. > Any user can create events (for their own tasks), this does not require > root. I don't think this is relevant to our discussion. > Allowing users to flip your @debugging flag would be an insta DoS. I think this is a reference to the non-root case, and might be mitigated by either using dynamic or ratelimited pr_ versions if it were. > Furthermore, its very unfriendly in that you have to (manually) go > correlate random dmesg output with some program action. Andrew Morton addresses this, and I did read all other follow-ups and still conclude that adding pr_ messages is 1000x better than not, for the user, and at least for the time being. Kim
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: kim.phillips@arm.com (Kim Phillips) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:17:43 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170113121743.31e09c7242d500d41469a068@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170113170307.GK3253@arm.com> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:03:07 +0000 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:40:42AM -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:03:48 +0000 > > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > +#define DRVNAME "arm_spe_pmu" > > > > PMU is implied. "arm_spe"? > > As stated before, I'm going for consistency here. me too, but apparently under the user-visible interface domain rather than the driver source path domain. > Is it causing any > real issues on the tooling side? Intel has a consistent "intel_pt", "intel_bts", and 'pmu' occurs nowhere in their nomenclature. Whether good or bad, we currently have "cs_etm". This patch now gives us "arm_spe_pmu". I'm just trying to save the suffix consistency for now, esp. since IDK how amenable "cs_etm" is to change, and 'perf list' calls things "PMU event"s anyway. I think the root cause might be the device tree node's "arm,arm-spe-pmu-v1" compatiblity string, which I also find a bit self-redundant ("arm,arm-"), but I'm not familiar with what's being denoted there either (e.g., if the latter 'arm-' is an arch reference, then SPE's might be 'armv8'?). The device tree node isn't exposed to the user, however. > > > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > > > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) { > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + } > > > + > > > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event); > > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) && > > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) && > > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) && > > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > Please insert pr_* statements before blindly returning errors before a > > better facility becomes available. > > That was discussed in the thread I linked to last time: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/661 ok, thanks for pinpointing the exact message this time. > and there are good reasons not to add those prints. Processing that message (indentations are now quoting Peter Zijlstra): > Not really. That is something that's limited to root. Whereas the > problem is very much wider than that. For the purposes of the SPE driver discussion, I'm ok limiting the context of using the SPE as root. > If you set one bit wrong in the pretty large perf_event_attr you've got > a fair chance of getting -EINVAL on trying to create the event. Good > luck finding what you did wrong. yes, this is the problem, and the SPE introduces a whole new set of validity requirements that should be being communicated clearly, e.g., its restrictive event frequency specification. > Any user can create events (for their own tasks), this does not require > root. I don't think this is relevant to our discussion. > Allowing users to flip your @debugging flag would be an insta DoS. I think this is a reference to the non-root case, and might be mitigated by either using dynamic or ratelimited pr_ versions if it were. > Furthermore, its very unfriendly in that you have to (manually) go > correlate random dmesg output with some program action. Andrew Morton addresses this, and I did read all other follow-ups and still conclude that adding pr_ messages is 1000x better than not, for the user, and at least for the time being. Kim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-13 18:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-01-13 16:03 [RFC PATCH v2 00/10] Add support for the ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] arm64: cpufeature: allow for version discrepancy in PMU implementations Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] arm64: cpufeature: Don't enforce system-wide SPE capability Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] arm64: KVM: Save/restore the host SPE state when entering/leaving a VM Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-16 11:25 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-16 11:25 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-18 15:24 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-18 15:24 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/10] arm64: head.S: Enable EL1 (host) access to SPE when entered at EL2 Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 19:21 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-13 19:21 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/10] genirq: export irq_get_percpu_devid_partition to modules Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 19:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-13 19:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-16 9:06 ` Thomas Gleixner 2017-01-16 9:06 ` Thomas Gleixner 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/10] perf/core: Export AUX buffer helpers " Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/10] perf: Directly pass PERF_AUX_* flags to perf_aux_output_end Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] perf/core: Add PERF_AUX_FLAG_COLLISION to report colliding samples Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:40 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 16:40 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 17:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 17:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 18:17 ` Kim Phillips [this message] 2017-01-13 18:17 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/10] dt-bindings: Document devicetree binding for ARM SPE Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 18:43 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-13 18:43 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-16 10:59 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-16 10:59 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-17 16:31 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-17 16:31 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-17 16:50 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-17 16:50 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-17 16:45 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-17 16:45 ` Mark Rutland
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170113121743.31e09c7242d500d41469a068@arm.com \ --to=kim.phillips@arm.com \ --cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \ --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \ --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=robh@kernel.org \ --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.