Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/4] arm: pmu: Fix overflow checks for PMUv3p5 long counters

[Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 07:28:57PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> Hi Ricardo,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 03:10:29AM +0000, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> > PMUv3p5 uses 64-bit counters irrespective of whether the PMU is configured
> > for overflowing at 32 or 64-bits. The consequence is that tests that check
> > the counter values after overflowing should not assume that values will be
> > wrapped around 32-bits: they overflow into the other half of the 64-bit
> > counters on PMUv3p5.
> > 
> > Fix tests by correctly checking overflowing-counters against the expected
> > 64-bit value.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arm/pmu.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
> > index cd47b14..1b55e20 100644
> > --- a/arm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/arm/pmu.c
> > @@ -54,10 +54,13 @@
> >  #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_LOW	0x4000
> >  #define EXT_COMMON_EVENTS_HIGH	0x403F
> >  
> > -#define ALL_SET			0xFFFFFFFF
> > -#define ALL_CLEAR		0x0
> > -#define PRE_OVERFLOW		0xFFFFFFF0
> > -#define PRE_OVERFLOW2		0xFFFFFFDC
> > +#define ALL_SET			0x00000000FFFFFFFFULL
> > +#define ALL_SET_64		0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL
> > +#define ALL_CLEAR		0x0000000000000000ULL
> > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW		0x00000000FFFFFFF0ULL
> > +#define PRE_OVERFLOW2		0x00000000FFFFFFDCULL
> > +
> > +#define ALL_SET_AT(_64b)       (_64b ? ALL_SET_64 : ALL_SET)
> 
> AFAICT, ALL_SET is mostly used to toggle all PMCs in a configuration
> register. 

It's also used as a pre-overflow counter value. And that's mainly the use of
the newly introduced ALL_SET_AT(), and PRE_OVERFLOW_AT(). The ALL_SET_AT()
changes in this commit should be moved to commit 3; I will do that plus use
pmevcntr_mask() instead of ALL_SET_AT():

	uint64_t all_set = pmevcntr_mask();
	...
	/* overflow on odd counter */
	write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0, pre_overflow);
	write_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1, all_set);


> Using it for PMEVCNTR<n> seems a bit odd to me. How about
> introducing a helper for getting the counter mask to avoid the
> open-coded version check?
> 
> static uint64_t pmevcntr_mask(void)
> {
> 	/*
> 	 * Bits [63:0] are always incremented for 64-bit counters,
> 	 * even if the PMU is configured to generate an overflow at
> 	 * bits [31:0]
> 	 *
> 	 * See DDI0487I.a, section D11.3 ("Behavior on overflow") for
> 	 * more details.
> 	 */
> 	if (pmu.version >= ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5)
> 		return ~0;
> 
> 	return (uint32_t)~0;
> }
> 
> I've always found the PMU documentation to be a bit difficult to grok,
> and the above citation only mentions the intended behavior in passing.
> Please feel free to update with a better citation if it exists.
> 
> >  #define PMU_PPI			23
> >  
> > @@ -538,6 +541,7 @@ static void test_mem_access(void)
> >  static void test_sw_incr(void)
> >  {
> >  	uint32_t events[] = {SW_INCR, SW_INCR};
> > +	uint64_t cntr0;
> >  	int i;
> >  
> >  	if (!satisfy_prerequisites(events, ARRAY_SIZE(events)))
> > @@ -572,9 +576,11 @@ static void test_sw_incr(void)
> >  		write_sysreg(0x3, pmswinc_el0);
> >  
> >  	isb();
> > -	report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 0)  == 84, "counter #1 after + 100 SW_INCR");
> > -	report(read_regn_el0(pmevcntr, 1)  == 100,
> > -		"counter #0 after + 100 SW_INCR");
> > +	cntr0 = (pmu.version < ID_DFR0_PMU_V3_8_5) ?
> > +		(uint32_t)PRE_OVERFLOW + 100 :
> > +		(uint64_t)PRE_OVERFLOW + 100;
> 
> With the above suggestion, it would be nice to rewrite like so:
> 
> 	cntr0 = (PRE_OVERFLOW + 100) & pmevcntr_mask();
> 
> If you do go this route, then you'll probably want to drop all the other
> open-coded PMUv3p5 checks in favor of the helper.

Will also use this instead of the uintxx_t casting.

Thanks~
Ricardo

> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Oliver