[PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: arm64: Upgrade PMU support to ARMv8.4

[Auger Eric]

Hi Marc,
On 2/3/21 11:36 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> On 2021-01-27 17:53, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 1/25/21 1:26 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Upgrading the PMU code from ARMv8.1 to ARMv8.4 turns out to be
>>> pretty easy. All that is required is support for PMMIR_EL1, which
>>> is read-only, and for which returning 0 is a valid option as long
>>> as we don't advertise STALL_SLOT as an implemented event.
>>>
>>> Let's just do that and adjust what we return to the guest.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h |  3 +++
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c       |  6 ++++++
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c       | 11 +++++++----
>>>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>> index 8b5e7e5c3cc8..2fb3f386588c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>> @@ -846,7 +846,10 @@
>>>
>>>  #define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT        24
>>>
>>> +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_0        0x3
>>>  #define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_1        0x4
>>> +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_4        0x5
>>> +#define ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_5        0x6
>>>
>>>  #define ID_ISAR4_SWP_FRAC_SHIFT        28
>>>  #define ID_ISAR4_PSR_M_SHIFT        24
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
>>> index 398f6df1bbe4..72cd704a8368 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
>>> @@ -795,6 +795,12 @@ u64 kvm_pmu_get_pmceid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> bool pmceid1)
>>>          base = 0;
>>>      } else {
>>>          val = read_sysreg(pmceid1_el0);
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * Don't advertise STALL_SLOT, as PMMIR_EL0 is handled
>>> +         * as RAZ
>>> +         */
>>> +        if (vcpu->kvm->arch.pmuver >= ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_4)
>>> +            val &= ~BIT_ULL(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_STALL_SLOT - 32);
>> what about the STALL_SLOT_BACKEND and FRONTEND events then?
> 
> Aren't these a mandatory ARMv8.1 feature? I don't see a reason to
> drop them.

I understand the 3 are linked together.

In D7.11 it is said
"
When any of the following common events are implemented, all three of
them are implemented:
0x003D , STALL_SLOT_BACKEND, No operation sent for execution on a Slot
due to the backend,
0x003E , STALL_SLOT_FRONTEND, No operation sent for execution on a Slot
due to the frontend.
0x003F , STALL_SLOT, No operation sent for execution on a Slot.
"

Thanks

Eric

> 
>>>          base = 32;
>>>      }
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>> index 8f79ec1fffa7..5da536ab738d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>> @@ -1051,16 +1051,16 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu,
>>>          /* Limit debug to ARMv8.0 */
>>>          val &= ~FEATURE(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER);
>>>          val |= FIELD_PREP(FEATURE(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER), 6);
>>> -        /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.1 */
>>> +        /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.4 */
>>>          val = cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field(val,
>>>                                ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_SHIFT,
>>> -                              kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ?
>>> ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_1 : 0);
>>> +                              kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ?
>>> ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_4 : 0);
>>>          break;
>>>      case SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1:
>>> -        /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.1 */
>>> +        /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.4 */
>>>          val = cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field(val,
>>>                                ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT,
>>> -                              kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ?
>>> ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_1 : 0);
>>> +                              kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ?
>>> ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_4 : 0);
>>>          break;
>>>      }
>>>
>>> @@ -1496,6 +1496,7 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc
>>> sys_reg_descs[] = {
>>>
>>>      { SYS_DESC(SYS_PMINTENSET_EL1), access_pminten, reset_unknown,
>>> PMINTENSET_EL1 },
>>>      { SYS_DESC(SYS_PMINTENCLR_EL1), access_pminten, reset_unknown,
>>> PMINTENSET_EL1 },
>> "KVM: arm64: Hide PMU registers from userspace when not available"
>> changed the above, doesn't it?
> 
> Yes, that's because the fix didn't make it in mainline before
> 5.11-rc5, and I based this on -rc4. I'll fix it at merge time.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         M.