Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 04/10] arm: pmu: Check Required Event Support

[Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

Hi Andre,

On 1/9/20 6:30 PM, André Przywara wrote:
> On 09/01/2020 16:54, Auger Eric wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
>> On 1/3/20 7:12 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:47:51 +0100
>>> Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>>> If event counters are implemented check the common events
>>>> required by the PMUv3 are implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Some are unconditionally required (SW_INCR, CPU_CYCLES,
>>>> either INST_RETIRED or INST_SPEC). Some others only are
>>>> required if the implementation implements some other features.
>>>>
>>>> Check those wich are unconditionally required.
>>>>
>>>> This test currently fails on TCG as neither INST_RETIRED
>>>> or INST_SPEC are supported.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v1 ->v2:
>>>> - add a comment to explain the PMCEID0/1 splits
>>>> ---
>>>>  arm/pmu.c         | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  arm/unittests.cfg |  6 ++++
>>>>  2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
>>>> index d24857e..d88ef22 100644
>>>> --- a/arm/pmu.c
>>>> +++ b/arm/pmu.c
>>>> @@ -101,6 +101,10 @@ static inline void precise_instrs_loop(int loop, uint32_t pmcr)
>>>>  	: [pmcr] "r" (pmcr), [z] "r" (0)
>>>>  	: "cc");
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +/* event counter tests only implemented for aarch64 */
>>>> +static void test_event_introspection(void) {}
>>>> +
>>>>  #elif defined(__aarch64__)
>>>>  #define ID_AA64DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT 8
>>>>  #define ID_AA64DFR0_PERFMON_MASK  0xf
>>>> @@ -139,6 +143,70 @@ static inline void precise_instrs_loop(int loop, uint32_t pmcr)
>>>>  	: [pmcr] "r" (pmcr)
>>>>  	: "cc");
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +#define PMCEID1_EL0 sys_reg(11, 3, 9, 12, 7)
>>>> +
>>>> +static bool is_event_supported(uint32_t n, bool warn)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	uint64_t pmceid0 = read_sysreg(pmceid0_el0);
>>>> +	uint64_t pmceid1 = read_sysreg_s(PMCEID1_EL0);
>>>> +	bool supported;
>>>> +	uint32_t reg;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * The low 32-bits of PMCEID0/1 respectly describe
>>>> +	 * event support for events 0-31/32-63. Their High
>>>> +	 * 32-bits describe support for extended events
>>>> +	 * starting at 0x4000, using the same split.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (n >= 0x0  && n <= 0x1F)
>>>> +		reg = pmceid0 & 0xFFFFFFFF;
>>>> +	else if  (n >= 0x4000 && n <= 0x401F)
>>>> +		reg = pmceid0 >> 32;
>>>> +	else if (n >= 0x20  && n <= 0x3F)
>>>> +		reg = pmceid1 & 0xFFFFFFFF;
>>>> +	else if (n >= 0x4020 && n <= 0x403F)
>>>> +		reg = pmceid1 >> 32;
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		abort();
>>>> +
>>>> +	supported =  reg & (1 << n);
>>>
>>> Don't we need to mask off everything but the lowest 5 bits of "n"? Probably also using "1U" is better.
>> I added an assert to check n is less or equal than 0x3F
> 
> But "n" will definitely be bigger than that in case of an extended
> event, won't it? So you adjust "reg" accordingly, but miss to do
> something similar to "n"?
ouch yes. Sorry. I Will do what you suggest. Nethertheless this would be
test code error.
> 
>>>
>>>> +	if (!supported && warn)
>>>> +		report_info("event %d is not supported", n);
>>>> +	return supported;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void test_event_introspection(void)
>>>
>>> "introspection" sounds quite sophisticated. Are you planning to extend this? If not, could we maybe rename it to "test_available_events"?
>> Yes this test is a placeholder for looking at the PMU characteristics
>> and we may add some other queries there.
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	bool required_events;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!pmu.nb_implemented_counters) {
>>>> +		report_skip("No event counter, skip ...");
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* PMUv3 requires an implementation includes some common events */
>>>> +	required_events = is_event_supported(0x0, true) /* SW_INCR */ &&
>>>> +			  is_event_supported(0x11, true) /* CPU_CYCLES */ &&
>>>> +			  (is_event_supported(0x8, true) /* INST_RETIRED */ ||
>>>> +			   is_event_supported(0x1B, true) /* INST_PREC */);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (pmu.version == 0x4) {
>>>> +		/* ARMv8.1 PMU: STALL_FRONTEND and STALL_BACKEND are required */
>>>> +		required_events = required_events ||
>>>> +				  is_event_supported(0x23, true) ||
>>>
>>> Shouldn't those two operators be '&&' instead?
>> yes definitively
>>>
>>>> +				  is_event_supported(0x24, true);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * L1D_CACHE_REFILL(0x3) and L1D_CACHE(0x4) are only required if
>>>> +	 * L1 data / unified cache. BR_MIS_PRED(0x10), BR_PRED(0x12) are only
>>>> +	 * required if program-flow prediction is implemented.
>>>> +	 */
>>>
>>> Is this a TODO?
>> yes. Added TODO. I do not know how to check whether the conditions are
>> satisfied? Do you have any idea?
> 
> Well, AFAICS KVM doesn't filter PMCEIDn, right? So some basic checks are
> surely fine, but I wouldn't go crazy about checking every possible
> aspect of it. After all you would just check the hardware, as we pass
> this register on.

I agree I can skip those.

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre.
> 
>> Thank you for the review!
>>
>> Eric
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andre
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +	report(required_events, "Check required events are implemented");
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  #endif
>>>>  
>>>>  /*
>>>> @@ -326,6 +394,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>  		       "Monotonically increasing cycle count");
>>>>  		report(check_cpi(cpi), "Cycle/instruction ratio");
>>>>  		pmccntr64_test();
>>>> +	} else if (strcmp(argv[1], "event-introspection") == 0) {
>>>> +		report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
>>>> +		test_event_introspection();
>>>>  	} else {
>>>>  		report_abort("Unknown sub-test '%s'", argv[1]);
>>>>  	}
>>>> diff --git a/arm/unittests.cfg b/arm/unittests.cfg
>>>> index 79f0d7a..4433ef3 100644
>>>> --- a/arm/unittests.cfg
>>>> +++ b/arm/unittests.cfg
>>>> @@ -66,6 +66,12 @@ file = pmu.flat
>>>>  groups = pmu
>>>>  extra_params = -append 'cycle-counter 0'
>>>>  
>>>> +[pmu-event-introspection]
>>>> +file = pmu.flat
>>>> +groups = pmu
>>>> +arch = arm64
>>>> +extra_params = -append 'event-introspection'
>>>> +
>>>>  # Test PMU support (TCG) with -icount IPC=1
>>>>  #[pmu-tcg-icount-1]
>>>>  #file = pmu.flat
>>>
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm