Hi Marc,
On 2/3/21 10:32 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2021-01-27 17:41, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> Had another look at the patch, comments below.
>>
>> On 1/25/21 12:26 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);
>>
>> This is confusing the me. We have kvm->arch.pmuver set to the hardware
>> PMU version
>> (as set by __armv8pmu_probe_pmu()), but we ignore it when reporting the PMU
>> version to the guest. Why do we do that? We limit the event number in
>> kvm_pmu_event_mask() based on the hardware PMU version, so even if we advertise
>> Armv8.4 PMU, support for all those extra events added by Arm8.1 PMU is
>> missing (I hope I understood the code correctly).
>
> That's a bit of mess-up. We obtain ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 from the sanitised
> regs, but do most of our handling based on kvm->arch.pmuver. They really
> should be the same, because that's what the sanitised registers give
> you.
>
> As for the events themselves, I don't get your drift. We do support
> all the ARMv8.1 PMU events as long as the HW supports it, and we
> don't lie to the guest about it either (cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field
> does *cap* the field to some value, it doesn't allow it to increase
> past what the HW supports).
That's the piece that I was missing - I didn't realize that
cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field() makes sure that the final version doesn't exceed
what the hardware supports. Thanks for clearing it up!
>
>> I looked at commit c854188ea010 ("KVM: arm64: limit PMU version to PMUv3 for
>> ARMv8.1") which changed read_id_reg() to report PMUv3 for Armv8.1
>> unconditionally,
>> and there's no explanation why PMUv3 for Armv8.1 was chosen instead of
>> plain PMUv3 (PMUVer = 0b0100).
>
> We picked ARMv8.1 because this is the first PMU revision that gives
> you events in the 0x4000 range, all of which are available on
> common ARMv8.2 HW.
Yes, makes sense in the context of cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field() capping
PMUVer based on the hardware supported version.
Thanks,
Alex
