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@xxxxxxx>
---
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
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
