[PATCH 0/4] KVM: arm64: PMU: Fix PMUVer handling on heterogeneous PMU systems

[Reiji Watanabe]

Hi Marc,

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2023 05:02:32 +0100,
> Reiji Watanabe <reijiw at google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > This series fixes issues with PMUVer handling for a guest with
> > PMU configured on heterogeneous PMU systems.
> > Specifically, it addresses the following two issues.
> > 
> > [A] The default value of ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer of the vCPU is set
> >     to its sanitized value.  This could be inappropriate on
> >     heterogeneous PMU systems, as arm64_ftr_bits for PMUVer is defined
> >     as FTR_EXACT with safe_val == 0 (when ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer of all
> >     PEs on the host is not uniform, the sanitized value will be 0).
> 
> Why is this a problem? The CPUs don't implement the same version of
> the architecture, we don't get a PMU. Why should we try to do anything
> better? I really don't think we should go out or out way and make the
> code more complicated for something that doesn't really exist.

Even when the CPUs don't implement the same version of the architecture,
if one of them implement PMUv3, KVM advertises KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3,
and allows userspace to configure PMU (KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3) for vCPUs.

In this case, although KVM provides PMU emulations for the guest,
the guest's ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer will be zero.  Also,
KVM_SET_ONE_REG for ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 will never work for vCPUs
with PMU configured on such systems (since KVM also doesn't allow
userspace to set the PMUVer to 0 for the vCPUs with PMU configured).

I would think either ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer for the guest should
indicate PMUv3, or KVM should not allow userspace to configure PMU,
in this case.

This series is a fix for the former, mainly to keep the current
behavior of KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 and KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 on such
systems, since I wasn't sure if such systems don't really exist :)
(Also, I plan to implement a similar fix for PMCR_EL0.N on top of
those changes)

I could make a fix for the latter instead though. What do you think ?

Thank you,
Reiji

> 
> Or am I missing the problem altogether?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 
> -- 
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.