From: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>, Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>, Raghavendra Rao Anata <rananta@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Fix PMUVer handling on heterogeneous PMU systems Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 05:53:24 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20230530125324.ijrwrvoll2detpus@google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87zg5njlyn.wl-maz@kernel.org> Hi Marc, On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2023 05:02:32 +0100, > Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> wrote: > > > > This series fixes issues with PMUVer handling for a guest with > > PMU configured on heterogeneous PMU systems. > > Specifically, it addresses the following two issues. > > > > [A] The default value of ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer of the vCPU is set > > to its sanitized value. This could be inappropriate on > > heterogeneous PMU systems, as arm64_ftr_bits for PMUVer is defined > > as FTR_EXACT with safe_val == 0 (when ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer of all > > PEs on the host is not uniform, the sanitized value will be 0). > > Why is this a problem? The CPUs don't implement the same version of > the architecture, we don't get a PMU. Why should we try to do anything > better? I really don't think we should go out or out way and make the > code more complicated for something that doesn't really exist. Even when the CPUs don't implement the same version of the architecture, if one of them implement PMUv3, KVM advertises KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, and allows userspace to configure PMU (KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3) for vCPUs. In this case, although KVM provides PMU emulations for the guest, the guest's ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer will be zero. Also, KVM_SET_ONE_REG for ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 will never work for vCPUs with PMU configured on such systems (since KVM also doesn't allow userspace to set the PMUVer to 0 for the vCPUs with PMU configured). I would think either ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer for the guest should indicate PMUv3, or KVM should not allow userspace to configure PMU, in this case. This series is a fix for the former, mainly to keep the current behavior of KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 and KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 on such systems, since I wasn't sure if such systems don't really exist :) (Also, I plan to implement a similar fix for PMCR_EL0.N on top of those changes) I could make a fix for the latter instead though. What do you think ? Thank you, Reiji > > Or am I missing the problem altogether? > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>, Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>, Raghavendra Rao Anata <rananta@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Fix PMUVer handling on heterogeneous PMU systems Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 05:53:24 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20230530125324.ijrwrvoll2detpus@google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87zg5njlyn.wl-maz@kernel.org> Hi Marc, On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2023 05:02:32 +0100, > Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> wrote: > > > > This series fixes issues with PMUVer handling for a guest with > > PMU configured on heterogeneous PMU systems. > > Specifically, it addresses the following two issues. > > > > [A] The default value of ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer of the vCPU is set > > to its sanitized value. This could be inappropriate on > > heterogeneous PMU systems, as arm64_ftr_bits for PMUVer is defined > > as FTR_EXACT with safe_val == 0 (when ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer of all > > PEs on the host is not uniform, the sanitized value will be 0). > > Why is this a problem? The CPUs don't implement the same version of > the architecture, we don't get a PMU. Why should we try to do anything > better? I really don't think we should go out or out way and make the > code more complicated for something that doesn't really exist. Even when the CPUs don't implement the same version of the architecture, if one of them implement PMUv3, KVM advertises KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, and allows userspace to configure PMU (KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3) for vCPUs. In this case, although KVM provides PMU emulations for the guest, the guest's ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer will be zero. Also, KVM_SET_ONE_REG for ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 will never work for vCPUs with PMU configured on such systems (since KVM also doesn't allow userspace to set the PMUVer to 0 for the vCPUs with PMU configured). I would think either ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer for the guest should indicate PMUv3, or KVM should not allow userspace to configure PMU, in this case. This series is a fix for the former, mainly to keep the current behavior of KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 and KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 on such systems, since I wasn't sure if such systems don't really exist :) (Also, I plan to implement a similar fix for PMCR_EL0.N on top of those changes) I could make a fix for the latter instead though. What do you think ? Thank you, Reiji > > Or am I missing the problem altogether? > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-30 12:54 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-05-27 4:02 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Fix PMUVer handling on heterogeneous PMU systems Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Introduce a helper to set the guest's PMU Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set the default PMU for the guest on vCPU reset Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 17:35 ` kernel test robot 2023-05-27 17:35 ` kernel test robot 2023-05-27 4:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Use PMUVer of the guest's PMU for ID_AA64DFR0.PMUVer Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Don't use the PMUVer of the PMU set for guest Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-27 4:02 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-05-29 13:39 ` [PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Fix PMUVer handling on heterogeneous PMU systems Marc Zyngier 2023-05-29 13:39 ` Marc Zyngier 2023-05-30 12:53 ` Reiji Watanabe [this message] 2023-05-30 12:53 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-06-01 5:02 ` Marc Zyngier 2023-06-01 5:02 ` Marc Zyngier 2023-06-02 5:23 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-06-02 5:23 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-06-02 9:05 ` Marc Zyngier 2023-06-02 9:05 ` Marc Zyngier 2023-06-02 16:07 ` Reiji Watanabe 2023-06-02 16:07 ` Reiji Watanabe
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=20230530125324.ijrwrvoll2detpus@google.com \ --to=reijiw@google.com \ --cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \ --cc=james.morse@arm.com \ --cc=jingzhangos@google.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=maz@kernel.org \ --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \ --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \ --cc=rananta@google.com \ --cc=ricarkol@google.com \ --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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.