On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:11:41 +0000,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 3:11 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:58:17 +0000,
> > Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marc,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 8:46 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > PMUv3p5 (which is mandatory with ARMv8.5) comes with some extra
> > > > features:
> > > >
> > > > - All counters are 64bit
> > > >
> > > > - The overflow point is controlled by the PMCR_EL0.LP bit
> > > >
> > > > Add the required checks in the helpers that control counter
> > > > width and overflow, as well as the sysreg handling for the LP
> > > > bit. A new kvm_pmu_is_3p5() helper makes it easy to spot the
> > > > PMUv3p5 specific handling.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 8 +++++---
> > > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 4 ++++
> > > > include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 7 +++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> > > > index 4320c389fa7f..c37cc67ff1d7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> > > > @@ -52,13 +52,15 @@ static u32 kvm_pmu_event_mask(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > */
> > > > static bool kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > > > {
> > > > - return (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);
> > > > + return (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX || kvm_pmu_is_3p5(vcpu));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static bool kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > > > {
> > > > - return (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX &&
> > > > - __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC);
> > > > + u64 val = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0);
> > > > +
> > > > + return (select_idx < ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX && (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LP)) ||
> > > > + (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX && (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC));
> > >
> > > Since the vCPU's PMCR_EL0 value is not always in sync with
> > > kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp, shouldn't kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow()
> > > check kvm_pmu_is_3p5() ?
> > > (e.g. when the host supports PMUv3p5, PMCR.LP will be set by reset_pmcr()
> > > initially. Then, even if userspace sets ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVER to
> > > PMUVer_V3P1, PMCR.LP will stay the same (still set) unless PMCR is
> > > written. So, kvm_pmu_idx_has_64bit_overflow() might return true
> > > even though the guest's PMU version is lower than PMUVer_V3P5.)
I realised that reset_pmcr() cannot result in LP being set early, as
the default PMU version isn't PMUv3p5. But I'm starting to think that
we should stop playing random tricks with PMCR reset value, and make
the whole thing as straightforward as possible. TBH, the only
information we actually need from the host is PMCR_EL0.N, so we should
limit ourselves to that.
> >
> > I can see two ways to address this: either we spray PMUv3p5 checks
> > every time we evaluate PMCR, or we sanitise PMCR after each userspace
> > write to ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.
> >
> > I'd like to be able to take what is stored in the register file at
> > face value, so I'm angling towards the second possibility. It also
>
> I thought about that too. What makes it a bit tricky is that
> given that kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp is shared among all vCPUs
> for the guest, updating the PMCR should be done for all the vCPUs.
Yeah, good point. This really is a mess.
> > +static void update_dfr0_pmuver(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u8 pmuver)
> > +{
> > + if (vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp != pmuver) {
> > + vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp = pmuver;
> > + __reset_pmcr(vcpu, __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0));
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Or if userspace is expected to set ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 (PMUVER) for
> each vCPU, update_dfr0_pmuver() should update PMCR even when
> 'kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp' is the same as the given 'pmuver'.
> (as PMCR for the vCPU might have not been updated yet)
>
> > makes some sense from a 'HW' perspective: you change the HW
> > dynamically by selecting a new version, the HW comes up with its reset
> > configuration (i.e don't expect PMCR to stick after you write to
> > DFR0 with a different PMUVer).
>
> Yes, it makes some sense.
> But, with that, for live migration, PMCR should be restored only
> after ID_AA64DFR0_EL1/ID_DFR0_EL1 is restored (to avoid PMCR
> being reset after PMCR is restored), which I would think might
> affect live migration.
> (Or am I misunderstanding something ?)
You are correct. There is no way out of that anyway, as you need to
select PMUv3p5 early in order to be able to restore PMCR itself.
I *may* have a slightly better solution though, which is to piggy-back
on the call to kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr() that happens on the first run of
each vcpu. This would allow us to sanitise PMCR in the other direction
(set PMUv3p5, set PMCR, set PMUV3p1, need to fix the potential stale
PMCR_EL0.LP bit).
Something like this:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
index 3295dea34f4c..2d291a29d978 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
@@ -538,6 +538,12 @@ void kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
if (!kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu))
return;
+ /* Fixup PMCR_EL0 to reconcile the PMU version and the LP bit */
+ if (!kvm_pmu_is_3p5(vcpu))
+ val &= ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LP;
+
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = val;
+
if (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E) {
kvm_pmu_enable_counter_mask(vcpu,
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0));
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
index 12a873d94aaf..a5a340346749 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
@@ -703,15 +703,15 @@ static bool access_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
return false;
if (p->is_write) {
- /* Only update writeable bits of PMCR */
+ /*
+ * Only update writeable bits of PMCR (continuing into
+ * kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr() as well)
+ */
val = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0);
val &= ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK;
val |= p->regval & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK;
if (!kvm_supports_32bit_el0())
val |= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC;
- if (!kvm_pmu_is_3p5(vcpu))
- val &= ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LP;
- __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = val;
kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(vcpu, val);
kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(vcpu);
} else {
And for the reset aspect, something like this:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
index 67eac0f747be..528d253c571a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
@@ -639,24 +639,18 @@ static void reset_pmselr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
{
- u64 pmcr, val;
+ u64 pmcr;
/* No PMU available, PMCR_EL0 may UNDEF... */
if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
return;
- pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0);
- /*
- * Writable bits of PMCR_EL0 (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK) are reset to UNKNOWN
- * except PMCR.E resetting to zero.
- */
- val = ((pmcr & ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK)
- | (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK & 0xdecafbad)) & (~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E);
+ /* Only preserve PMCR_EL0.N, and reset the rest to 0 */
+ pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
if (!kvm_supports_32bit_el0())
- val |= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC;
- if (!kvm_pmu_is_3p5(vcpu))
- val &= ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LP;
- __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = val;
+ pmcr |= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC;
+
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = pmcr;
}
static bool check_pmu_access_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 flags)
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
