From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Remove cyclical dependency in arm_pmuv3.h
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 08:27:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87frkrtr4z.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250206001744.3155465-1-coltonlewis@google.com>
Colton,
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:17:44 +0000,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com> wrote:
>
> asm/kvm_host.h includes asm/arm_pmu.h which includes perf/arm_pmuv3.h
> which includes asm/arm_pmuv3.h which includes asm/kvm_host.h This
> causes confusing compilation problems why trying to use anything
> defined in any of the headers in any other headers. Header guards is
> the only reason this cycle didn't create tons of redefinition
> warnings.
>
> The motivating example was figuring out it was impossible to use the
> hypercall macros kvm_call_hyp* from kvm_host.h in arm_pmuv3.h. The
> compiler will insist they aren't defined even though kvm_host.h is
> included. Many other examples are lurking which could confuse
> developers in the future.
Well, that's because contrary to what you have asserted in v1, not all
include files are legitimate to use willy-nilly. You have no business
directly using asm/kvm_host.h, and linux/kvm_host.h is what you need.
>
> Break the cycle by taking asm/kvm_host.h out of asm/arm_pmuv3.h
> because asm/kvm_host.h is huge and we only need a few functions from
> it. Move the required declarations to a new header asm/kvm_pmu.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
> ---
>
> Possibly spinning more definitions out of asm/kvm_host.h would be a
> good idea, but I'm not interested in getting bogged down in which
> functions ideally belong where. This is sufficient to break the
Tough luck. I'm not interested in half baked solutions, and "what
belongs where" *is* the problem that needs solving.
> cyclical dependency and get rid of the compilation issues. Though I
> mention the one example I found, many other similar problems could
> confuse developers in the future.
>
> v2:
> * Make a new header instead of moving kvm functions into the
> dedicated pmuv3 header
>
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20250204195708.1703531-1-coltonlewis@google.com/
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h | 3 +--
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 14 --------------
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pmu.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 1 -
> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pmu.h
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h
> index 8a777dec8d88..54dd27a7a19f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h
> @@ -6,9 +6,8 @@
> #ifndef __ASM_PMUV3_H
> #define __ASM_PMUV3_H
>
> -#include <asm/kvm_host.h>
> -
> #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> +#include <asm/kvm_pmu.h>
> #include <asm/sysreg.h>
>
> #define RETURN_READ_PMEVCNTRN(n) \
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 7cfa024de4e3..6d4a2e7ab310 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1385,25 +1385,11 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_ctxflush_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_ctxsync_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_put_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>
> -static inline bool kvm_pmu_counter_deferred(struct perf_event_attr *attr)
> -{
> - return (!has_vhe() && attr->exclude_host);
> -}
> -
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> -void kvm_set_pmu_events(u64 set, struct perf_event_attr *attr);
> -void kvm_clr_pmu_events(u64 clr);
> -bool kvm_set_pmuserenr(u64 val);
> void kvm_enable_trbe(void);
> void kvm_disable_trbe(void);
> void kvm_tracing_set_el1_configuration(u64 trfcr_while_in_guest);
> #else
> -static inline void kvm_set_pmu_events(u64 set, struct perf_event_attr *attr) {}
> -static inline void kvm_clr_pmu_events(u64 clr) {}
> -static inline bool kvm_set_pmuserenr(u64 val)
> -{
> - return false;
> -}
> static inline void kvm_enable_trbe(void) {}
> static inline void kvm_disable_trbe(void) {}
> static inline void kvm_tracing_set_el1_configuration(u64 trfcr_while_in_guest) {}
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pmu.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pmu.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3a8f737504d2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pmu.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +
> +#ifndef __KVM_PMU_H
> +#define __KVM_PMU_H
> +
> +void kvm_vcpu_pmu_resync_el0(void);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> +void kvm_set_pmu_events(u64 set, struct perf_event_attr *attr);
> +void kvm_clr_pmu_events(u64 clr);
> +bool kvm_set_pmuserenr(u64 val);
> +#else
> +static inline void kvm_set_pmu_events(u64 set, struct perf_event_attr *attr) {}
> +static inline void kvm_clr_pmu_events(u64 clr) {}
> +static inline bool kvm_set_pmuserenr(u64 val)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_pmu_counter_deferred(struct perf_event_attr *attr)
> +{
> + return (!has_vhe() && attr->exclude_host);
> +}
> +
> +#endif
How does this solve your problem of using the HYP-calling macros?
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> index 147bd3ee4f7b..2c78b1b1a9bb 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -74,7 +74,6 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> struct kvm_pmu_events *kvm_get_pmu_events(void);
> void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> -void kvm_vcpu_pmu_resync_el0(void);
>
> #define kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) \
> (vcpu_has_feature(vcpu, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3))
>
> base-commit: 2014c95afecee3e76ca4a56956a936e23283f05b
I'm absolutely not keen on *two* PMU-related include files. They both
describe internal APIs, and don't see a good reasoning for this
arbitrary split other than "it works better for me and I don't want to
do more than strictly necessary".
For example, include/kvm was only introduced to be able to share files
between architectures, and with 32bit KVM/arm being long dead, this
serves no purpose anymore. Moving these things out of the way would be
a good start and would provide a better base for further change.
So please present a rationale on what needs to go where and why based
on their usage pattern rather than personal convenience, and then
we'll look at a possible patch. But not the other way around.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-06 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-06 0:17 [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Remove cyclical dependency in arm_pmuv3.h Colton Lewis
2025-02-06 8:27 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2025-02-06 19:45 ` Colton Lewis
2025-02-07 11:52 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-02-07 17:40 ` Colton Lewis
2025-02-06 23:27 ` kernel test robot
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=87frkrtr4z.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=coltonlewis@google.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/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).