[PATCH v8 20/20] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
Andrew Jones
drjones at redhat.com
Thu Jan 7 12:18:59 PST 2016
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:08:15PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao at linaro.org>
>
> Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
> the kvm_device_ops for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao at linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt | 24 +++++
> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 4 +
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 +
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +
> 6 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..dda864e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
> +===========================================
> +
> +Device types supported:
> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
> +
> +Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
^^ don't need this 'for' here
> +
> +Groups:
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
> + Attributes:
> + The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes one value:
> + bits: | 63 .... 32 | 31 .... 0 |
> + values: | reserved | vcpu_index |
Everywhere else in kvm documentation a vcpu_index is 8 bits. I'm not
saying that that's good, but expanding it to 32 bits here is
inconsistent. (A side note is that I think we should s/vcpu_index/vcpu_id/
in order to keep the parameter name consistent with what's used by
KVM_CREATE_VCPU)
> + A value describing the PMU overflow interrupt number for the specified
> + vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one VM the
> + interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. As a PPI, the interrupt number is
> + same for all vcpus, while as a SPI it must be different for each vcpu.
> +
> + Errors:
> + -ENXIO: Unsupported attribute group
Do we need to specify ENXIO here? It's already specified in
Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt for SET/GET_DEVICE_ATTR
> + -EBUSY: The PMU overflow interrupt is already set
> + -ENODEV: Getting the PMU overflow interrupt number while it's not set
> + -EINVAL: Invalid vcpu_index or PMU overflow interrupt number supplied
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 2d4ca4b..cbb9022 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -204,6 +204,10 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL 4
> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT 0
>
> +/* Device Control API: ARM PMU */
> +#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ 0
> +#define KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_CPUID_MASK 0xffffffffULL
I don't think we should need a mask like this, at least not in the uapi.
The documentation says to use a vcpu-index [really a vcpu-id], and users
should know how to convert their vcpu handle (whatever that may be) to
a vcpu-id using whatever transformation is necessary. They may already
have a "vcpu id mask" defined (this is one reason why I don't think we
should use a 32-bit vcpu-index here, instead of the 8-bit vcpu-index used
everywhere else). Likewise, kvm should know how to do it's transformation.
Maybe, to aid in the attr field construction, we should supply a shift,
allowing both sides to do something like
int pmu_attr_extract_vcpu_id(u64 attr)
{
return (attr >> KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_VCPUID_SHIFT) & VCPU_ID_MASK;
}
u64 pmu_attr_create(int vcpu_id)
{
return vcpu_id << KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_VCPUID_SHIFT;
}
But, in this case the shift is zero, so it's not really necessary. In
any case, please add the 'V' for VCPU.
> +
> /* KVM_IRQ_LINE irq field index values */
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 24
> #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_TYPE_MASK 0xff
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index c923350..608dea6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v3_ops;
> +extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index 03f3618..4ba6fdd 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -1032,6 +1032,8 @@ enum kvm_device_type {
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3,
> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3
> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3,
> +#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3
> KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index 3ec3cdd..5518308 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include <linux/kvm.h>
> #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
> +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
> #include <kvm/arm_pmu.h>
> #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
> @@ -374,3 +375,130 @@ void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
>
> pmc->perf_event = event;
> }
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + return vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num != -1;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr,
> + int *irq, bool is_set)
> +{
> + int cpuid;
please call this vcpu_id
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu;
> +
> + cpuid = attr->attr & KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_CPUID_MASK;
> + if (cpuid >= atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, cpuid);
> + if (!vcpu)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> + if (!is_set) {
> + if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + *irq = pmu->irq_num;
> + } else {
> + if (kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + kvm_debug("Set kvm ARM PMU irq: %d\n", *irq);
> + pmu->irq_num = *irq;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + struct kvm *kvm = dev->kvm;
> +
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> +
> + memset(pmu, 0, sizeof(*pmu));
I don't think we want this memset. If we can only create the pmu
once, then it's unnecessary (we zalloc vcpus). And, if we can
recreate pmus with this call, then it'll create a memory leak, as
we'll be zero-ing out all the perf_event pointers, and then won't
be able to free them on the call to kvm_pmu_vcpu_reset. Naturally
we need to make sure we're NULL-ing them after each free instead.
> + kvm_pmu_vcpu_reset(vcpu);
> + pmu->irq_num = -1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_arm_pmu_destroy(struct kvm_device *dev)
> +{
> + kfree(dev);
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> + struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> +{
> + switch (attr->group) {
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ: {
> + int __user *uaddr = (int __user *)(long)attr->addr;
> + int reg;
> +
> + if (get_user(reg, uaddr))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + /*
> + * The PMU overflow interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one
> + * VM the interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. As a PPI,
> + * the interrupt number is same for all vcpus, while as a SPI it
> + * must be different for each vcpu.
> + */
> + if (reg < VGIC_NR_SGIS || reg >= dev->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(dev->kvm, attr, ®, true);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return -ENXIO;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_get_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> + struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + switch (attr->group) {
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ: {
> + int __user *uaddr = (int __user *)(long)attr->addr;
> + int reg = -1;
> +
> +
> + ret = kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(dev->kvm, attr, ®, false);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + return put_user(reg, uaddr);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return -ENXIO;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_arm_pmu_has_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> + struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> +{
> + switch (attr->group) {
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ:
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return -ENXIO;
> +}
> +
> +struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_pmu_ops = {
> + .name = "kvm-arm-pmu",
> + .create = kvm_arm_pmu_create,
> + .destroy = kvm_arm_pmu_destroy,
> + .set_attr = kvm_arm_pmu_set_attr,
> + .get_attr = kvm_arm_pmu_get_attr,
> + .has_attr = kvm_arm_pmu_has_attr,
> +};
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 484079e..81a42cc 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -2647,6 +2647,10 @@ static struct kvm_device_ops *kvm_device_ops_table[KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX] = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_XICS
> [KVM_DEV_TYPE_XICS] = &kvm_xics_ops,
> #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_ARM_PMU
> + [KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3] = &kvm_arm_pmu_ops,
Shouldn't we specify 'v3' in the kvm_arm_pmu_ops name, as we do with the
device type name?
> +#endif
> };
>
> int kvm_register_device_ops(struct kvm_device_ops *ops, u32 type)
> --
> 2.0.4
>
Thanks,
drew
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list