* [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded @ 2017-04-04 10:40 Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-04 11:18 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-04 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel Cc: Will.Deacon, catalin.marinas, mark.rutland, marc.zyngier, jnair, gpkulkarni commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel and exlude_hv. This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c index daf95919..ea5848a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c @@ -871,15 +871,20 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event, if (attr->exclude_idle) return -EPERM; - if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && - attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) - return -EINVAL; + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { + /* include EL2 events, if either of not excluded */ + if ((attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) || + !attr->exclude_kernel || + !attr->exclude_hv) + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; + } else { + if (attr->exclude_kernel) + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; + if (!attr->exclude_hv) + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; + } if (attr->exclude_user) config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0; - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel) - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; - if (!attr->exclude_hv) - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; /* * Install the filter into config_base as this is used to -- 1.8.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-04 10:40 [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-04 11:18 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-04 12:07 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2017-04-04 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni Cc: linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, catalin.marinas, mark.rutland, marc.zyngier, jnair, gpkulkarni On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) > is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel > and exlude_hv. > > This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when > ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, > if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. > > Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be excluded. Will > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c > index daf95919..ea5848a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c > @@ -871,15 +871,20 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event, > > if (attr->exclude_idle) > return -EPERM; > - if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && > - attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > - return -EINVAL; > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > + /* include EL2 events, if either of not excluded */ > + if ((attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) || > + !attr->exclude_kernel || > + !attr->exclude_hv) > + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; > + } else { > + if (attr->exclude_kernel) > + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; > + if (!attr->exclude_hv) > + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; > + } > if (attr->exclude_user) > config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0; > - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel) > - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; > - if (!attr->exclude_hv) > - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; > > /* > * Install the filter into config_base as this is used to > -- > 1.8.1.4 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-04 11:18 ` Will Deacon @ 2017-04-04 12:07 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-04 12:26 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-04 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Marc Zyngier, jnair Hi Will, On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel >> and exlude_hv. >> >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be > excluded. The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor event count, since both are same. IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 > > Will > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> index daf95919..ea5848a 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> @@ -871,15 +871,20 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event, >> >> if (attr->exclude_idle) >> return -EPERM; >> - if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && >> - attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) >> - return -EINVAL; >> + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { >> + /* include EL2 events, if either of not excluded */ >> + if ((attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) || >> + !attr->exclude_kernel || >> + !attr->exclude_hv) >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; >> + } else { >> + if (attr->exclude_kernel) >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; >> + if (!attr->exclude_hv) >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; >> + } >> if (attr->exclude_user) >> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0; >> - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel) >> - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; >> - if (!attr->exclude_hv) >> - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; >> >> /* >> * Install the filter into config_base as this is used to >> -- >> 1.8.1.4 >> thanks Ganapat ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-04 12:07 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-04 12:26 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-05 3:59 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2017-04-04 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Marc Zyngier, jnair On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) > >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel > >> and exlude_hv. > >> > >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when > >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, > >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, > > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires > > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling > > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be > > excluded. > > The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 > when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there > is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor > event count, since both are same. You can make exactly the same argument against your proposal by saying that it makes sense to disable EL2 event counting when there is a request from an application to either exclude kernel or hypervisor event counting. > IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour > when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 Then find another solution to that. How about a mechanism to advertise that exclude_hv is effectively always set if the kernel is running at EL2? That would mean that you would use exclude_kernel to determine the profiling controls for the host. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-04 12:26 ` Will Deacon @ 2017-04-05 3:59 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-05 8:31 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-05 3:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Marc Zyngier, jnair On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) >> >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel >> >> and exlude_hv. >> >> >> >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when >> >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, >> >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> >> >> --- >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> > >> > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, >> > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires >> > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling >> > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be >> > excluded. >> >> The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 >> when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there >> is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor >> event count, since both are same. > > You can make exactly the same argument against your proposal by saying that > it makes sense to disable EL2 event counting when there is a request from > an application to either exclude kernel or hypervisor event counting. yes, the argument is equally valid on either side. > >> IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour >> when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 > > Then find another solution to that. How about a mechanism to advertise > that exclude_hv is effectively always set if the kernel is running at EL2? I am not sure, how we can advertise to user that kernel is running at EL2. we may add a note to man page of perf_event_open? "exclude_hv is always set, if host kernel and hypervisor are running at same privilege level", > > That would mean that you would use exclude_kernel to determine the profiling > controls for the host. yes, this seems to be more appropriate. > > Will thanks Ganapat ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-05 3:59 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-05 8:31 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-05 9:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-05 9:48 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2017-04-05 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Marc Zyngier, jnair On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:29:32AM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > >> >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) > >> >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel > >> >> and exlude_hv. > >> >> > >> >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when > >> >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, > >> >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> > >> >> --- > >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > >> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, > >> > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires > >> > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling > >> > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be > >> > excluded. > >> > >> The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 > >> when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there > >> is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor > >> event count, since both are same. > > > > You can make exactly the same argument against your proposal by saying that > > it makes sense to disable EL2 event counting when there is a request from > > an application to either exclude kernel or hypervisor event counting. > > yes, the argument is equally valid on either side. > > > > >> IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour > >> when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 > > > > Then find another solution to that. How about a mechanism to advertise > > that exclude_hv is effectively always set if the kernel is running at EL2? > > I am not sure, how we can advertise to user that kernel is running at EL2. > we may add a note to man page of perf_event_open? > "exclude_hv is always set, if host kernel and hypervisor are running > at same privilege level", I was thinking of putting something into sysfs, alongside the other things we have in there. For example, a file that describes whether any of the perf_event_attr behave as though they are fixed to a certain value. We should involve the perf maintainers (and perf tool developers) in this, but perhaps something like an attr directory, where we could have a file called exclude_hv that contains the value 1. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-05 8:31 ` Will Deacon @ 2017-04-05 9:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-05 9:48 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-05 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Marc Zyngier, jnair Hi Perf Maintainers, your suggestion on below discussion is much appreciated! On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:29:32AM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> >> >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) >> >> >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel >> >> >> and exlude_hv. >> >> >> >> >> >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when >> >> >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, >> >> >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> >> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, >> >> > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires >> >> > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling >> >> > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be >> >> > excluded. >> >> >> >> The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 >> >> when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there >> >> is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor >> >> event count, since both are same. >> > >> > You can make exactly the same argument against your proposal by saying that >> > it makes sense to disable EL2 event counting when there is a request from >> > an application to either exclude kernel or hypervisor event counting. >> >> yes, the argument is equally valid on either side. >> >> > >> >> IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour >> >> when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 >> > >> > Then find another solution to that. How about a mechanism to advertise >> > that exclude_hv is effectively always set if the kernel is running at EL2? >> >> I am not sure, how we can advertise to user that kernel is running at EL2. >> we may add a note to man page of perf_event_open? >> "exclude_hv is always set, if host kernel and hypervisor are running >> at same privilege level", > > I was thinking of putting something into sysfs, alongside the other things > we have in there. For example, a file that describes whether any of the > perf_event_attr behave as though they are fixed to a certain value. We > should involve the perf maintainers (and perf tool developers) in this, > but perhaps something like an attr directory, where we could have a file > called exclude_hv that contains the value 1. > > Will thanks Ganapat ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded 2017-04-05 8:31 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-05 9:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-05 9:48 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni @ 2017-04-05 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon, Ingo Molnar, acme, alexander.shishkin, peterz Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Marc Zyngier, jnair [Adding maintainers] On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:29:32AM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> >> >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) >> >> >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel >> >> >> and exlude_hv. >> >> >> >> >> >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when >> >> >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, >> >> >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> >> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, >> >> > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires >> >> > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling >> >> > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be >> >> > excluded. >> >> >> >> The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 >> >> when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there >> >> is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor >> >> event count, since both are same. >> > >> > You can make exactly the same argument against your proposal by saying that >> > it makes sense to disable EL2 event counting when there is a request from >> > an application to either exclude kernel or hypervisor event counting. >> >> yes, the argument is equally valid on either side. >> >> > >> >> IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour >> >> when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 >> > >> > Then find another solution to that. How about a mechanism to advertise >> > that exclude_hv is effectively always set if the kernel is running at EL2? >> >> I am not sure, how we can advertise to user that kernel is running at EL2. >> we may add a note to man page of perf_event_open? >> "exclude_hv is always set, if host kernel and hypervisor are running >> at same privilege level", > > I was thinking of putting something into sysfs, alongside the other things > we have in there. For example, a file that describes whether any of the > perf_event_attr behave as though they are fixed to a certain value. We > should involve the perf maintainers (and perf tool developers) in this, > but perhaps something like an attr directory, where we could have a file > called exclude_hv that contains the value 1. > > Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-04-05 9:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-04-04 10:40 [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-04 11:18 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-04 12:07 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-04 12:26 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-05 3:59 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-05 8:31 ` Will Deacon 2017-04-05 9:46 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni 2017-04-05 9:48 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).