From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, KVMARM <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
ARMLinux <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>, Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: arm64: Use per guest ID register for ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:40:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86y1niwk83.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230317050637.766317-5-jingzhangos@google.com>
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 05:06:35 +0000,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@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@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 +++---
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 6 ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/id_regs.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 5 ++-
> 4 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index e926ea91a73c..102860ba896d 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 6
>
> 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 b60ca1058301..3a87a3d2390d 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),
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(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;
Drop the pointless elses.
> }
>
> static u8 perfmon_to_pmuver(u8 perfmon)
> @@ -256,10 +259,23 @@ 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) {
> + mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
Bingo!
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)] &=
> + ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer);
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)] |=
> + FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer), pmuver);
> +
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1)] &=
> + ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon);
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1)] |= FIELD_PREP(
> + ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon), pmuver_to_perfmon(pmuver));
> + mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> + } 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);
> + }
The last two cases are better written as:
assign_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VCPU_HAS_IMP_DEF_PMU, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags,
pmuver == ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_IMP_DEF);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -296,10 +312,23 @@ 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) {
> + mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
Same here (lock inversion)
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1)] &=
> + ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon);
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1)] |= FIELD_PREP(
> + ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon), perfmon);
> +
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)] &=
> + ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer);
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)] |= FIELD_PREP(
> + ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer), perfmon_to_pmuver(perfmon));
> + mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> + } 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);
> + }
Same here (assign_bit).
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -543,4 +572,14 @@ void kvm_arm_set_default_id_regs(struct kvm *kvm)
> }
>
> kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1)] = val;
> +
> + /*
> + * Initialise the default PMUver before there is a chance to
> + * create an actual PMU.
> + */
> + kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)] &=
> + ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer);
> + kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)] |=
> + FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer),
> + kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit());
Please put these assignments on a single line...
> }
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> index 628775334d5e..51c7f3e7bdde 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -92,8 +92,9 @@ 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) \
> + (FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer), \
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1)]) >= ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_V3P5)
I'll stop mentioning the need for accessors...
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-27 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-17 5:06 [PATCH v4 0/6] Support writable CPU ID registers from userspace Jing Zhang
2023-03-17 5:06 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] KVM: arm64: Move CPU ID feature registers emulation into a separate file Jing Zhang
2023-03-27 10:14 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-03-28 17:16 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-17 5:06 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] KVM: arm64: Save ID registers' sanitized value per guest Jing Zhang
2023-03-27 10:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-03-28 17:36 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-28 19:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-03-28 20:05 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-29 16:26 ` Reiji Watanabe
2023-03-17 5:06 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: arm64: Use per guest ID register for ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.[CSV2|CSV3] Jing Zhang
2023-03-27 10:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-03-28 19:54 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-28 12:39 ` Fuad Tabba
2023-03-28 20:01 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-29 8:23 ` Fuad Tabba
2023-03-17 5:06 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: arm64: Use per guest ID register for ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer Jing Zhang
2023-03-27 10:40 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2023-03-28 20:20 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-17 5:06 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] KVM: arm64: Introduce ID register specific descriptor Jing Zhang
2023-03-27 11:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-03-29 3:46 ` Jing Zhang
2023-03-17 5:06 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: arm64: Refactor writings for PMUVer/CSV2/CSV3 Jing Zhang
2023-03-27 13:34 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-03-29 4:29 ` Jing Zhang
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=86y1niwk83.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jingzhangos@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=oupton@google.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rananta@google.com \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=ricarkol@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tabba@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).