All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: KVM: Enable support for :G/:H perf event modifiers
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:53:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36b3c08c-7f5b-3f45-c0c0-062080308de8@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181116121251.GE19420@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>



On 16/11/2018 12:12, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:40:24PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/11/2018 15:57, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> On 15/11/18 12:55, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>>>> Enable/disable event counters as appropriate when entering and exiting
>>>>> the guest to enable support for guest or host only event counting.
>>>>>
>>>>> For both VHE and non-VHE we switch the counters between host/guest at
>>>>> EL2. EL2 is filtered out by the PMU when we are using the :G modifier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>>>>> index d496ef5..ebf0aac 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>>>>> @@ -373,6 +373,32 @@ static bool __hyp_text __hyp_switch_fpsimd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>     	return true;
>>>>>     }
>>>>> +static bool __hyp_text __pmu_switch_to_guest(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	u32 host_only = host_ctxt->events_host_only;
>>>>> +	u32 guest_only = host_ctxt->events_guest_only;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (host_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(host_only, pmcntenclr_el0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (guest_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(guest_only, pmcntenset_el0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return (host_only || guest_only);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void __hyp_text __pmu_switch_to_host(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	u32 host_only = host_ctxt->events_host_only;
>>>>> +	u32 guest_only = host_ctxt->events_guest_only;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (guest_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(guest_only, pmcntenclr_el0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (host_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(host_only, pmcntenset_el0);
>>>>
>>>> In the perf_event code, there is an ISB after enabling an event. I guess we
>>>> don't need it when setting the guest events since I believe the eret to the
>>>> guess give us the context synchronization. But don't we need one here when
>>>> restoring host only events?
>>>
>>> It's not really clear to me why the isb is present in the existing code,
>>> this was only recently introduced when adding the chained events support.
>>>
>>> Ideally for chained events you'd want to start the overflow counter first
>>> (idx) followed by the low counter second (idx-1) as to not miss overflows
>>> so an isb inbetween may be helpful. Though the isb is after both enables, this
>>> sets a clear line of where event counting starts - but ideally this would be
>>> symmetrical with an isb after the disable.
>>
>> I think the isb() in the armv8_pmu_enable_event_counter() is
>> unnecessary, and might have been a left over from earlier versions
>> of the series. Please feel free to remove it.
> 
> OK I'll do that.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> At present chained counters aren't supported in the guest but in any case
>>> we turn them all on/off atomically rather than individually.
>>>
>>> I guess we get a trivial gain in accuracy by adding ISB's at some performance
>>> cost - I'm not sure I see the benefit - unless I'm missing something?
>>
>> But, I think Julien has a valid point here. When we modify the
>> pmcnten{set/clr} registers, the PMU could be enabled. (i.e, PMCR_E set).
>>
>> So in order to synchronize the changes to the counters, we need an isb()
>> in the switch to host case to take immediate effect of the counter
>> changes.
> 
> For VHE we already do an isb in kvm_arm_vhe_guest_exit (next line of code
> to kvm_arm_vhe_guest_exit).
> 
> For !VHE as I understand we will eret from EL2 (due to kvm_call_hyp call
> completing) and thus also implicitly isb.
> 
> If that's correct we don't need to add any isb's right?

Yes, you're right. May be it is worth mentioning it where we switch to
host, so that we don't have to dig this again when we look at it later.

Cheers
Suzuki

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: suzuki.poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: KVM: Enable support for :G/:H perf event modifiers
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:53:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36b3c08c-7f5b-3f45-c0c0-062080308de8@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181116121251.GE19420@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>



On 16/11/2018 12:12, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:40:24PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/11/2018 15:57, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> On 15/11/18 12:55, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>>>> Enable/disable event counters as appropriate when entering and exiting
>>>>> the guest to enable support for guest or host only event counting.
>>>>>
>>>>> For both VHE and non-VHE we switch the counters between host/guest at
>>>>> EL2. EL2 is filtered out by the PMU when we are using the :G modifier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>>>>> index d496ef5..ebf0aac 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>>>>> @@ -373,6 +373,32 @@ static bool __hyp_text __hyp_switch_fpsimd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>     	return true;
>>>>>     }
>>>>> +static bool __hyp_text __pmu_switch_to_guest(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	u32 host_only = host_ctxt->events_host_only;
>>>>> +	u32 guest_only = host_ctxt->events_guest_only;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (host_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(host_only, pmcntenclr_el0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (guest_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(guest_only, pmcntenset_el0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return (host_only || guest_only);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void __hyp_text __pmu_switch_to_host(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	u32 host_only = host_ctxt->events_host_only;
>>>>> +	u32 guest_only = host_ctxt->events_guest_only;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (guest_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(guest_only, pmcntenclr_el0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (host_only)
>>>>> +		write_sysreg(host_only, pmcntenset_el0);
>>>>
>>>> In the perf_event code, there is an ISB after enabling an event. I guess we
>>>> don't need it when setting the guest events since I believe the eret to the
>>>> guess give us the context synchronization. But don't we need one here when
>>>> restoring host only events?
>>>
>>> It's not really clear to me why the isb is present in the existing code,
>>> this was only recently introduced when adding the chained events support.
>>>
>>> Ideally for chained events you'd want to start the overflow counter first
>>> (idx) followed by the low counter second (idx-1) as to not miss overflows
>>> so an isb inbetween may be helpful. Though the isb is after both enables, this
>>> sets a clear line of where event counting starts - but ideally this would be
>>> symmetrical with an isb after the disable.
>>
>> I think the isb() in the armv8_pmu_enable_event_counter() is
>> unnecessary, and might have been a left over from earlier versions
>> of the series. Please feel free to remove it.
> 
> OK I'll do that.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> At present chained counters aren't supported in the guest but in any case
>>> we turn them all on/off atomically rather than individually.
>>>
>>> I guess we get a trivial gain in accuracy by adding ISB's at some performance
>>> cost - I'm not sure I see the benefit - unless I'm missing something?
>>
>> But, I think Julien has a valid point here. When we modify the
>> pmcnten{set/clr} registers, the PMU could be enabled. (i.e, PMCR_E set).
>>
>> So in order to synchronize the changes to the counters, we need an isb()
>> in the switch to host case to take immediate effect of the counter
>> changes.
> 
> For VHE we already do an isb in kvm_arm_vhe_guest_exit (next line of code
> to kvm_arm_vhe_guest_exit).
> 
> For !VHE as I understand we will eret from EL2 (due to kvm_call_hyp call
> completing) and thus also implicitly isb.
> 
> If that's correct we don't need to add any isb's right?

Yes, you're right. May be it is worth mentioning it where we switch to
host, so that we don't have to dig this again when we look at it later.

Cheers
Suzuki

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-16 17:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-15 12:55 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Support perf event modifiers :G and :H Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55 ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: KVM: add accessors to track guest/host only counters Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55   ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: arm_pmu: Add support for exclude_host/exclude_guest attributes Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55   ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: arm_pmu: Exclude EL1,2 with :G :H perf attributes Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55   ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 14:57   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-11-15 14:57     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-11-15 16:06     ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 16:06       ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: KVM: Enable support for :G/:H perf event modifiers Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 12:55   ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 14:00   ` Julien Thierry
2018-11-15 14:00     ` Julien Thierry
2018-11-15 15:57     ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 15:57       ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-15 17:40       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-11-15 17:40         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-11-16 12:12         ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-16 12:12           ` Andrew Murray
2018-11-16 17:53           ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2018-11-16 17:53             ` Suzuki K Poulose

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=36b3c08c-7f5b-3f45-c0c0-062080308de8@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=andrew.murray@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --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: link
Be 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.