Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1627218 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: perf: Use only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is running in HYP

Started byMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
First post2017-04-20 11:00 +0200
Last post2017-04-24 17:50 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: perf: Use only exclude_kernel attribute when  kernel is running in HYP Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-04-20 11:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: perf: Use only exclude_kernel attribute when  kernel is running in HYP Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 11:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: perf: Use only exclude_kernel attribute when  kernel is running in HYP Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-04-24 17:50 +0200

#1627218 — Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: perf: Use only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is running in HYP

FromMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date2017-04-20 11:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] arm64: perf: Use only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is running in HYP
Message-ID<tyg6t-6Ky-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14:06PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP)
> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel
> and exclude_hv. This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm)
> when ran on VHE enabled platforms.
> 
> Adding fix to consider only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is
> running in HYP. Also adding sysfs file to notify the bhehaviour
> of attribute exclude_hv.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com>
> ---
> 
> Changelog:
> 
> V2:
>  - Changes as per Will Deacon's suggestion.
> 
> V1: Initial patch
> 
>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h   |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> @@ -871,14 +890,13 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event,
>  
>  	if (attr->exclude_idle)
>  		return -EPERM;
> -	if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() &&
> -	    attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_kernel)
> +		config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
>  	if (attr->exclude_user)
>  		config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0;
>  	if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel)
>  		config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1;
> -	if (!attr->exclude_hv)
> +	if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_hv)
>  		config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;

This isn't quite what Will suggested.

The idea was that userspace would read sysfs, then use that to determine
the correct exclusion parameters [1,2]. This logic was not expected to
change; it correctly validates whether we can provide what the user
requests.

Thanks,
Mark.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-April/499224.html
[2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-April/499493.html

>  
>  	/*
> @@ -1008,6 +1026,8 @@ static int armv8_pmuv3_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>  		&armv8_pmuv3_events_attr_group;
>  	cpu_pmu->attr_groups[ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_FORMATS] =
>  		&armv8_pmuv3_format_attr_group;
> +	cpu_pmu->attr_groups[ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_ATTR] =
> +		&armv8_pmuv3_attr_group;
>  	return armv8pmu_probe_pmu(cpu_pmu);
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> index 8462da2..a26ffc7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ enum armpmu_attr_groups {
>  	ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_COMMON,
>  	ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_EVENTS,
>  	ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_FORMATS,
> +	ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_ATTR,
>  	ARMPMU_NR_ATTR_GROUPS
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 1.8.1.4
>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627234

FromGanapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@gmail.com>
Date2017-04-20 11:30 +0200
Message-ID<tygzv-7a4-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1627218
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14:06PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP)
>> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel
>> and exclude_hv. This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm)
>> when ran on VHE enabled platforms.
>>
>> Adding fix to consider only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is
>> running in HYP. Also adding sysfs file to notify the bhehaviour
>> of attribute exclude_hv.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changelog:
>>
>> V2:
>>  - Changes as per Will Deacon's suggestion.
>>
>> V1: Initial patch
>>
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>  include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h   |  1 +
>>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> @@ -871,14 +890,13 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event,
>>
>>       if (attr->exclude_idle)
>>               return -EPERM;
>> -     if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() &&
>> -         attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv)
>> -             return -EINVAL;
>> +     if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_kernel)
>> +             config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
>>       if (attr->exclude_user)
>>               config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0;
>>       if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel)
>>               config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1;
>> -     if (!attr->exclude_hv)
>> +     if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_hv)
>>               config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
>
> This isn't quite what Will suggested.
>
> The idea was that userspace would read sysfs, then use that to determine
> the correct exclusion parameters [1,2]. This logic was not expected to
> change; it correctly validates whether we can provide what the user
> requests.

OK, if you are ok with sysfs part, i can send next version with that
change only?.

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-April/499224.html
> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-April/499493.html
>
>>
>>       /*
>> @@ -1008,6 +1026,8 @@ static int armv8_pmuv3_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>>               &armv8_pmuv3_events_attr_group;
>>       cpu_pmu->attr_groups[ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_FORMATS] =
>>               &armv8_pmuv3_format_attr_group;
>> +     cpu_pmu->attr_groups[ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_ATTR] =
>> +             &armv8_pmuv3_attr_group;
>>       return armv8pmu_probe_pmu(cpu_pmu);
>>  }
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>> index 8462da2..a26ffc7 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ enum armpmu_attr_groups {
>>       ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_COMMON,
>>       ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_EVENTS,
>>       ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_FORMATS,
>> +     ARMPMU_ATTR_GROUP_ATTR,
>>       ARMPMU_NR_ATTR_GROUPS
>>  };
>>
>> --
>> 1.8.1.4
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1629695

FromWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Date2017-04-24 17:50 +0200
Message-ID<tzOpt-mK-45@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1627234
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:56:50PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14:06PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP)
> >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel
> >> and exclude_hv. This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm)
> >> when ran on VHE enabled platforms.
> >>
> >> Adding fix to consider only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is
> >> running in HYP. Also adding sysfs file to notify the bhehaviour
> >> of attribute exclude_hv.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changelog:
> >>
> >> V2:
> >>  - Changes as per Will Deacon's suggestion.
> >>
> >> V1: Initial patch
> >>
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>  include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h   |  1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> @@ -871,14 +890,13 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event,
> >>
> >>       if (attr->exclude_idle)
> >>               return -EPERM;
> >> -     if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() &&
> >> -         attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv)
> >> -             return -EINVAL;
> >> +     if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_kernel)
> >> +             config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
> >>       if (attr->exclude_user)
> >>               config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0;
> >>       if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel)
> >>               config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1;
> >> -     if (!attr->exclude_hv)
> >> +     if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_hv)
> >>               config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
> >
> > This isn't quite what Will suggested.
> >
> > The idea was that userspace would read sysfs, then use that to determine
> > the correct exclusion parameters [1,2]. This logic was not expected to
> > change; it correctly validates whether we can provide what the user
> > requests.
> 
> OK, if you are ok with sysfs part, i can send next version with that
> change only?.

I think the sysfs part is still a little dodgy, since you still expose the
"exclude_hv" file with a value of 0 when not running at EL2, which would
imply that exclude_hv is forced to zero. I don't think that's correct.

Will

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web