On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 05:55:17PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-01-02 12:39, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > ARMv8.5-PMU introduces 64-bit event counters, however KVM doesn't yet
> > support this. Let's trap the Debug Feature Registers in order to limit
> > PMUVer/PerfMon in the Debug Feature Registers to PMUv3 for ARMv8.4.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 4 ++++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > index 6e919fafb43d..1b74f275a115 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > @@ -672,6 +672,10 @@
> > #define ID_AA64DFR0_TRACEVER_SHIFT 4
> > #define ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER_SHIFT 0
> >
> > +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT 24
> > +
> > +#define ID_DFR0_EL1_PMUVER_8_4 5
> > +
> > #define ID_ISAR5_RDM_SHIFT 24
> > #define ID_ISAR5_CRC32_SHIFT 16
> > #define ID_ISAR5_SHA2_SHIFT 12
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > index 9f2165937f7d..61b984d934d1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > @@ -668,6 +668,37 @@ static bool
> > pmu_access_event_counter_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > return check_pmu_access_disabled(vcpu, ARMV8_PMU_USERENR_ER |
> > ARMV8_PMU_USERENR_EN);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool access_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > + struct sys_reg_params *p,
> > + const struct sys_reg_desc *rd)
> > +{
> > + if (p->is_write)
> > + return write_to_read_only(vcpu, p, rd);
> > +
> > + /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.4 */
> > + p->regval = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1);
> > + p->regval = cpuid_feature_cap_signed_field_width(p->regval,
> > + ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_SHIFT,
> > + 4, ID_DFR0_EL1_PMUVER_8_4);
> > +
> > + return p->regval;
>
> If feels very odd to return the register value in place of a something
> that actually indicates whether we should update the PC or not. I have
> no idea what is happening here in this case.
Crikey, yes, I missed that and it probably explains why the code looks so
odd. Andrew -- is there a missing hunk or something here?
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
