[PATCH v2 4/6] KVM: arm64: Use per guest ID register for ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer
Jing Zhang
jingzhangos at google.com
Sun Feb 26 18:57:24 PST 2023
Hi Reiji,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 6:36 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw at google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jing,
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:58 PM Jing Zhang <jingzhangos at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > With per guest ID registers, PMUver settings from userspace
> > can be stored in its corresponding ID register.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos at google.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 ++++----
> > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 6 -----
> > arch/arm64/kvm/id_regs.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 6 +++--
> > 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index f64347eb77c2..effb61a9a855 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -218,6 +218,12 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> > #define KVM_ARCH_FLAG_EL1_32BIT 4
> > /* PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND enabled for the guest */
> > #define KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_SUSPEND_ENABLED 5
> > + /*
> > + * AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUver was set as ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_IMP_DEF
> > + * or DFR0_EL1.PerfMon was set as ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon_IMPDEF from
> > + * userspace for VCPUs without PMU.
> > + */
> > +#define KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU
>
> As Oliver suggested, it might be better to not expose IMPDEF PMU
> (but expose as 0), since it is not effectively supported by KVM.
> (We need to be careful not to have migration from old KVM fail though)
>
>
Since that change is not related to writable ID register change
itself, I'd prefer to have that change in a separate commit or post.
> >
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > @@ -230,11 +236,6 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> >
> > cpumask_var_t supported_cpus;
> >
> > - struct {
> > - u8 imp:4;
> > - u8 unimp:4;
> > - } dfr0_pmuver;
> > -
> > /* Hypercall features firmware registers' descriptor */
> > struct kvm_smccc_features smccc_feat;
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index c78d68d011cb..fb2de2cb98cb 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -138,12 +138,6 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> > kvm_arm_set_default_id_regs(kvm);
> > kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(kvm);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Initialise the default PMUver before there is a chance to
> > - * create an actual PMU.
> > - */
> > - kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp = kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit();
> > -
> > return 0;
> >
> > err_free_cpumask:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/id_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/id_regs.c
> > index bc4c408a43eb..14ae03a1d8d0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/id_regs.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/id_regs.c
> > @@ -21,9 +21,12 @@
> > static u8 vcpu_pmuver(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > if (kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu))
> > - return vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp;
> > -
> > - return vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.unimp;
> > + return FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer),
> > + IDREG(vcpu->kvm, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1));
> > + else if (test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags))
> > + return ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_IMP_DEF;
> > + else
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static u8 perfmon_to_pmuver(u8 perfmon)
> > @@ -267,10 +270,15 @@ static int set_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > if (val)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - if (valid_pmu)
> > - vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp = pmuver;
> > - else
> > - vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.unimp = pmuver;
> > + if (valid_pmu) {
> > + IDREG(vcpu->kvm, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1) &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer);
> > + IDREG(vcpu->kvm, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1) |=
> > + FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer), pmuver);
>
> The original code keeps ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer and ID_DFR0_EL1.PerfMon
> values consistent (if one of them is update, the other one is also
> updated accordingly). To keep the same behavior, shouldn't we update
> the other one as well when one of them is updated ?
>
Yes, will do that to keep the values consistent.
> Thank you,
> Reiji
>
>
> > + } else if (pmuver == ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_IMP_DEF) {
> > + set_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags);
> > + } else {
> > + clear_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags);
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -307,10 +315,15 @@ static int set_id_dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > if (val)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - if (valid_pmu)
> > - vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp = perfmon_to_pmuver(perfmon);
> > - else
> > - vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.unimp = perfmon_to_pmuver(perfmon);
> > + if (valid_pmu) {
> > + IDREG(vcpu->kvm, SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1) &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon);
> > + IDREG(vcpu->kvm, SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1) |=
> > + FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon), perfmon_to_pmuver(perfmon));
> > + } else if (perfmon == ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon_IMPDEF) {
> > + set_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags);
> > + } else {
> > + clear_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags);
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -534,4 +547,13 @@ void kvm_arm_set_default_id_regs(struct kvm *kvm)
> > }
> >
> > IDREG(kvm, SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1) = val;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Initialise the default PMUver before there is a chance to
> > + * create an actual PMU.
> > + */
> > + IDREG(kvm, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1) &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer);
> > + IDREG(kvm, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1) |=
> > + FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer),
> > + kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit());
> > }
> > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> > index 628775334d5e..eef67b7d9751 100644
> > --- a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> > @@ -92,8 +92,10 @@ void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > /*
> > * Evaluates as true when emulating PMUv3p5, and false otherwise.
> > */
> > -#define kvm_pmu_is_3p5(vcpu) \
> > - (vcpu->kvm->arch.dfr0_pmuver.imp >= ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_V3P5)
> > +#define kvm_pmu_is_3p5(vcpu) \
> > + (kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) && \
> > + FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer), \
> > + IDREG(vcpu->kvm, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)) >= ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_V3P5)
> >
> > u8 kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit(void);
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.1.581.gbfd45094c4-goog
> >
Thanks,
Jing
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list