From: jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/perf: Extend event mask for ARMv8.1
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:47:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217104735.GA3318@hardcore> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160216151252.GG14509@arm.com>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:12:53PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:00:15AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:04:04PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:12:00PM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > > + cpu_pmu->event_mask = 0xffff; /* ARMv8.1 extended events */
> > > > + else
> > > > + cpu_pmu->event_mask = ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT;
> > >
> > > ... although can't we just update ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT to be 0xffff now?
> > > AFAICT, that just eats into bits that used to be RES0, so we shouldn't
> > > see any problems. That should make your patch *much* simpler!
> >
> > That would of course be easier, but I just can't assess the implications.
> >
> > Probably I'm missing something but to me it looks like the event mask is the
> > only verification we do for the user-space selectable events. Is it safe for
> > implementations that only support 0x3ff events to allow access to the
> > whole 0xffff range? What memory would be accessed for non-existing
> > events?
>
> Which memory? The worst-case is that we end up writing to some bits in
> a register (e.g. PMXEVTYPER) that are RES0 in ARMv8 afaict.
OK, I see. Than I'm happy to drop 99% of that patch and just increase
the mask.
Jan
> Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/perf: Extend event mask for ARMv8.1
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:47:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217104735.GA3318@hardcore> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160216151252.GG14509@arm.com>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:12:53PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:00:15AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:04:04PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:12:00PM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > > + cpu_pmu->event_mask = 0xffff; /* ARMv8.1 extended events */
> > > > + else
> > > > + cpu_pmu->event_mask = ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT;
> > >
> > > ... although can't we just update ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT to be 0xffff now?
> > > AFAICT, that just eats into bits that used to be RES0, so we shouldn't
> > > see any problems. That should make your patch *much* simpler!
> >
> > That would of course be easier, but I just can't assess the implications.
> >
> > Probably I'm missing something but to me it looks like the event mask is the
> > only verification we do for the user-space selectable events. Is it safe for
> > implementations that only support 0x3ff events to allow access to the
> > whole 0xffff range? What memory would be accessed for non-existing
> > events?
>
> Which memory? The worst-case is that we end up writing to some bits in
> a register (e.g. PMXEVTYPER) that are RES0 in ARMv8 afaict.
OK, I see. Than I'm happy to drop 99% of that patch and just increase
the mask.
Jan
> Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-17 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-03 17:11 [PATCH v3 0/5] Cavium ThunderX PMU support Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64/perf: Rename Cortex A57 events Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-15 19:40 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-15 19:40 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-15 20:06 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-15 20:06 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-18 9:13 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-18 9:13 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-18 11:24 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-18 11:24 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-18 13:45 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-18 13:45 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64/perf: Add Cavium ThunderX PMU support Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: dts: Add Cavium ThunderX specific PMU Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64/perf: Enable PMCR long cycle counter bit Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-15 19:55 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-15 19:55 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-16 8:04 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-16 8:04 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:12 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/perf: Extend event mask for ARMv8.1 Jan Glauber
2016-02-03 17:12 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-15 20:04 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-15 20:04 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-16 8:00 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-16 8:00 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-16 15:12 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-16 15:12 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-17 10:47 ` Jan Glauber [this message]
2016-02-17 10:47 ` Jan Glauber
2016-02-11 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Cavium ThunderX PMU support Jan Glauber
2016-02-11 13:28 ` Jan Glauber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160217104735.GA3318@hardcore \
--to=jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.