Hi,
On 2/3/21 12:20 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2021-02-03 11:07, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>> On 2/3/21 11:36 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On 2021-01-27 17:53, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> On 1/25/21 1:26 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> Upgrading the PMU code from ARMv8.1 to ARMv8.4 turns out to be
>>>>> pretty easy. All that is required is support for PMMIR_EL1, which
>>>>> is read-only, and for which returning 0 is a valid option as long
>>>>> as we don't advertise STALL_SLOT as an implemented event.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's just do that and adjust what we return to the guest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 3 +++
>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 6 ++++++
>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 11 +++++++----
>>>>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> index 8b5e7e5c3cc8..2fb3f386588c 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> @@ -846,7 +846,10 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> #define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT 24
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_0 0x3
>>>>> #define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_1 0x4
>>>>> +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_4 0x5
>>>>> +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_5 0x6
>>>>>
>>>>> #define ID_ISAR4_SWP_FRAC_SHIFT 28
>>>>> #define ID_ISAR4_PSR_M_SHIFT 24
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
>>>>> index 398f6df1bbe4..72cd704a8368 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
>>>>> @@ -795,6 +795,12 @@ u64 kvm_pmu_get_pmceid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>> bool pmceid1)
>>>>> base = 0;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> val = read_sysreg(pmceid1_el0);
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Don't advertise STALL_SLOT, as PMMIR_EL0 is handled
>>>>> + * as RAZ
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (vcpu->kvm->arch.pmuver >= ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_4)
>>>>> + val &= ~BIT_ULL(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_STALL_SLOT - 32);
>>>> what about the STALL_SLOT_BACKEND and FRONTEND events then?
>>>
>>> Aren't these a mandatory ARMv8.1 feature? I don't see a reason to
>>> drop them.
>>
>> I understand the 3 are linked together.
>>
>> In D7.11 it is said
>> "
>> When any of the following common events are implemented, all three of
>> them are implemented:
>> 0x003D , STALL_SLOT_BACKEND, No operation sent for execution on a Slot
>> due to the backend,
>> 0x003E , STALL_SLOT_FRONTEND, No operation sent for execution on a Slot
>> due to the frontend.
>> 0x003F , STALL_SLOT, No operation sent for execution on a Slot.
>> "
>
> They are linked in the sense that they report related events, but they
> don't have to be implemented in the same level of the architecure, if only
> because BACKEND/FRONTEND were introducedway before ARMv8.4.
>
> What the architecture says is:
>
> - For FEAT_PMUv3p1 (ARMv8.1):
> "The STALL_FRONTEND and STALL_BACKEND events are required to be
> implemented." (A2.4.1, DDI0487G.a)
OK
>
> - For FEAT_PMUv3p4 (ARMv8.4):
> "If FEAT_PMUv3p4 is implemented:
> - If STALL_SLOT is not implemented, it is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED
> whether the PMMIR System registers are implemented.
> - If STALL_SLOT is implemented, then the PMMIR System registers are
> implemented." (D7-2873, DDI0487G.a)
>
> So while BACKEND/FRONTEND are required in an ARMv8.4 implementation
> by virtue of being mandatory in ARMv8.1, STALL_SLOT isn't at any point.
But then how do you understand "When any of the following common events
are implemented, all three of them are implemented"?
Eric
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
