[PATCH v3] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.3-SPE

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 02:03:22PM +0800, Wei Li wrote:
> Armv8.3 extends the SPE by adding:
> - Alignment field in the Events packet, and filtering on this event
>   using PMSEVFR_EL1.
> - Support for the Scalable Vector Extension (SVE).
> 
> The main additions for SVE are:
> - Recording the vector length for SVE operations in the Operation Type
>   packet. It is not possible to filter on vector length.
> - Incomplete predicate and empty predicate fields in the Events packet,
>   and filtering on these events using PMSEVFR_EL1.
> 
> Update the check of pmsevfr for empty/partial predicated SVE and
> alignment event in SPE driver. For adaption by the version of SPE,
> expose 'pmsver' as cap attribute to userspace.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Li <liwei391 at huawei.com>
> ---
> v2 -> v3:
>  - Make the definition of 'pmsevfr_res0' progressive and easy to check.
>    (Suggested by Will.)
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
>  - Rename 'pmuver' to 'pmsver', change it's type to 'u16' from 'int'.
>    (Suggested by Will and Leo.)
>  - Expose 'pmsver' as cap attribute through sysfs, instead of printing.
>    (Suggested by Will.)
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h |  9 ++++++++-
>  drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c      | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> index d52c1b3ce589..57e5aee6f7e6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> @@ -287,7 +287,11 @@
>  #define SYS_PMSFCR_EL1_ST_SHIFT		18
>  
>  #define SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1			sys_reg(3, 0, 9, 9, 5)
> -#define SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0		0x0000ffff00ff0f55UL
> +#define SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0_8_2	\
> +	(GENMASK_ULL(47, 32) | GENMASK_ULL(23, 16) | GENMASK_ULL(11, 8) |\
> +	 BIT_ULL(6) | BIT_ULL(4) | BIT_ULL(2) | BIT_ULL(0))
> +#define SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0_8_3	\
> +	(SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0_8_2 & ~(BIT_ULL(18) | BIT_ULL(17) | BIT_ULL(11)))
>  
>  #define SYS_PMSLATFR_EL1		sys_reg(3, 0, 9, 9, 6)
>  #define SYS_PMSLATFR_EL1_MINLAT_SHIFT	0
> @@ -829,6 +833,9 @@
>  #define ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_5		0x6
>  #define ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_IMP_DEF	0xf
>  
> +#define ID_AA64DFR0_PMSVER_8_2		0x1
> +#define ID_AA64DFR0_PMSVER_8_3		0x2
> +
>  #define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT		24
>  
>  #define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_1		0x4
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> index cc00915ad6d1..515c51271d7f 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ struct arm_spe_pmu {
>  	struct hlist_node			hotplug_node;
>  
>  	int					irq; /* PPI */
> -
> +	u16					pmsver;
>  	u16					min_period;
>  	u16					counter_sz;
>  
> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ enum arm_spe_pmu_capabilities {
>  	SPE_PMU_CAP_FEAT_MAX,
>  	SPE_PMU_CAP_CNT_SZ = SPE_PMU_CAP_FEAT_MAX,
>  	SPE_PMU_CAP_MIN_IVAL,
> +	SPE_PMU_CAP_PMSVER,
>  };
>  
>  static int arm_spe_pmu_feat_caps[SPE_PMU_CAP_FEAT_MAX] = {
> @@ -110,6 +111,8 @@ static u32 arm_spe_pmu_cap_get(struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu, int cap)
>  		return spe_pmu->counter_sz;
>  	case SPE_PMU_CAP_MIN_IVAL:
>  		return spe_pmu->min_period;
> +	case SPE_PMU_CAP_PMSVER:
> +		return spe_pmu->pmsver;
>  	default:
>  		WARN(1, "unknown cap %d\n", cap);
>  	}
> @@ -143,6 +146,7 @@ static struct attribute *arm_spe_pmu_cap_attr[] = {
>  	SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(ernd, SPE_PMU_CAP_ERND),
>  	SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(count_size, SPE_PMU_CAP_CNT_SZ),
>  	SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(min_interval, SPE_PMU_CAP_MIN_IVAL),
> +	SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(pmsver, SPE_PMU_CAP_PMSVER),
>  	NULL,
>  };
>  
> @@ -655,6 +659,18 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_spe_pmu_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev)
>  	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>  }
>  
> +static u64 arm_spe_pmsevfr_res0(u16 pmsver)
> +{
> +	switch (pmsver) {
> +	case ID_AA64DFR0_PMSVER_8_2:
> +		return SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0_8_2;
> +	case ID_AA64DFR0_PMSVER_8_3:
> +		return SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0_8_3;
> +	default:
> +		return -1;
> +	}

I don't think -1 is the right choice here if we don't recognise the
version, as it means that old kernels won't work on new hardware. I think
it would be better to return the highest architecture version we know about
in that case...

> +}
> +
>  /* Perf callbacks */
>  static int arm_spe_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
>  {
> @@ -670,7 +686,7 @@ static int arm_spe_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
>  	    !cpumask_test_cpu(event->cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus))
>  		return -ENOENT;
>  
> -	if (arm_spe_event_to_pmsevfr(event) & SYS_PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0)
> +	if (arm_spe_event_to_pmsevfr(event) & arm_spe_pmsevfr_res0(spe_pmu->pmsver))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>  	if (attr->exclude_idle)
> @@ -937,6 +953,7 @@ static void __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe(void *info)
>  			fld, smp_processor_id());
>  		return;
>  	}
> +	spe_pmu->pmsver = (u16)fld;

... which also means we should clamp this value now that we expose it to
userspace. Otherwise, userspace can't rely on this field for anything.

That said -- please can you tell me what userspace intends to do with
this version number?

Will