Hi Marc,
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:58 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> As further patches will enable the selection of a PMU revision
> from userspace, sample the supported PMU revision at VM creation
> time, rather than building each time the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 register
> is accessed.
>
> This shouldn't result in any change in behaviour.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 6 ++++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 11 +++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 6 ++++++
> 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index f38ef299f13b..411114510634 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>
> u8 pfr0_csv2;
> u8 pfr0_csv3;
> + u8 dfr0_pmuver;
>
> /* Hypercall features firmware registers' descriptor */
> struct kvm_smccc_features smccc_feat;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index 8fe73ee5fa84..e4f80f0c1e97 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -164,6 +164,12 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> set_default_spectre(kvm);
> kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(kvm);
>
> + /*
> + * Initialise the default PMUver before there is a chance to
> + * create an actual PMU.
> + */
> + kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver = kvm_arm_pmu_get_host_pmuver();
> +
> return ret;
> out_free_stage2_pgd:
> kvm_free_stage2_pgd(&kvm->arch.mmu);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> index ddd79b64b38a..33a88ca7b7fd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> @@ -1021,3 +1021,14 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>
> return -ENXIO;
> }
> +
> +u8 kvm_arm_pmu_get_host_pmuver(void)
Nit: Since this function doesn't simply return the host's pmuver, but the
pmuver limit for guests, perhaps "kvm_arm_pmu_get_guest_pmuver_limit"
might be more clear (closer to what it does) ?
> +{
> + u64 tmp;
> +
> + tmp = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1);
> + tmp = cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field(tmp,
> + ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_SHIFT,
> + ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_4);
> + return FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER), tmp);
> +}
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 333efddb1e27..55451f49017c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1062,6 +1062,22 @@ static bool access_arch_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> return true;
> }
>
> +static u8 pmuver_to_perfmon(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + if (!kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu))
> + return 0;
> +
> + switch (vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver) {
> + case ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_0:
> + return ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_0;
> + case ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_IMP_DEF:
> + return 0;
> + default:
> + /* Anything ARMv8.4+ has the same value. For now. */
> + return vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver;
> + }
> +}
> +
> /* Read a sanitised cpufeature ID register by sys_reg_desc */
> static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
> @@ -1112,10 +1128,10 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> /* Limit debug to ARMv8.0 */
> val &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER);
> val |= FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER), 6);
> - /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.4 */
> - val = cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field(val,
> - ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_SHIFT,
> - kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ? ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_4 : 0);
> + /* Set PMUver to the required version */
> + val &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER);
> + val |= FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER),
> + kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ? vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver : 0);
> /* Hide SPE from guests */
> val &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_PMSVER);
> break;
> @@ -1123,7 +1139,7 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.4 */
Nit: I think the comment above should be removed like you did for
ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 (or move it to kvm_arm_pmu_get_host_pmuver()?).
Reviewed-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you,
Reiji
> val = cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field(val,
> ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT,
> - kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ? ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_4 : 0);
> + pmuver_to_perfmon(vcpu));
> break;
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> index 96b192139a23..6bda9b071084 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> vcpu->arch.pmu.events = *kvm_get_pmu_events(); \
> } while (0)
>
> +u8 kvm_arm_pmu_get_host_pmuver(void);
> +
> #else
> struct kvm_pmu {
> };
> @@ -154,6 +156,10 @@ static inline u64 kvm_pmu_get_pmceid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool pmceid1)
> static inline void kvm_pmu_update_vcpu_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> static inline void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> static inline void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> +static inline u8 kvm_arm_pmu_get_host_pmuver(void)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
