[PATCH v10 07/21] KVM: ARM64: PMU: Add perf event map and introduce perf event creating function

[Shannon Zhao]

On 2016/1/29 2:06, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:45:36PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > On 28/01/16 16:31, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:51:35AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>>> > >> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao at linaro.org>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> When we use tools like perf on host, perf passes the event type and the
>>>> > >> id of this event type category to kernel, then kernel will map them to
>>>> > >> hardware event number and write this number to PMU PMEVTYPER<n>_EL0
>>>> > >> register. When getting the event number in KVM, directly use raw event
>>>> > >> type to create a perf_event for it.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao at linaro.org>
>>>> > >> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>>>> > >> ---
>>>> > >>  arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h |   3 ++
>>>> > >>  arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile      |   1 +
>>>> > >>  include/kvm/arm_pmu.h        |  10 ++++
>>>> > >>  virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c           | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> > >>  4 files changed, 136 insertions(+)
>>>> > >>  create mode 100644 virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h
>>>> > >> index 4406184..2588f9c 100644
>>>> > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h
>>>> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h
>>>> > >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>>> > >>  
>>>> > >>  #define ARMV8_MAX_COUNTERS      32
>>>> > >>  #define ARMV8_COUNTER_MASK      (ARMV8_MAX_COUNTERS - 1)
>>>> > >> +#define ARMV8_CYCLE_IDX         (ARMV8_MAX_COUNTERS - 1)
>>> > > 
>>> > > I'm not sure we want to add this. It's name is wrong, as it's really
>>> > > PMCNTENSET_EL0.C, and just a few lines above we have the idx defined
>>> > > already (ARMV8_IDX_CYCLE_COUNTER), but as zero, because
>>> > > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c maps it that way.
>>> > > 
>>> > > I think we should do the same with the pmc array, i.e. map the cycle
>>> > > counter to idx zero.
>> > 
>> > I tend to have the opposite view. Not for the sake of it, but because I
>> > find it helpful to directly map the code to the architecture
>> > documentation without having to bend another handful of neurons.
>> > 
>> > Will probably had some good reasons to structure it that way, but I
>> > don't know the rational. Will?
> It was years ago, but I suspect that the cycle counter is index zero
> because its mandated, whilst the number of event counters is IMPDEF.
So does it need to change the cycle counter index to zero in this patch set?

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon