Re: [PATCH v3 06/22] perf: arm_pmuv3: Introduce method to partition the PMU

[Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 10:38:35PM +0000, Colton Lewis wrote:
> Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 05:57:14PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 08:04:42PM +0000, Colton Lewis wrote:
> > > > For PMUv3, the register field MDCR_EL2.HPMN partitiones the PMU
> > > > counters into two ranges where counters 0..HPMN-1 are accessible by
> > > > EL1 and, if allowed, EL0 while counters HPMN..N are only accessible by
> > > > EL2.
> > > >
> > > > Create module parameter reserved_host_counters to reserve a number of
> > > > counters for the host. This number is set at boot because the perf
> > > > subsystem assumes the number of counters will not change after the PMU
> > > > is probed.
> > > >
> > > > Introduce the function armv8pmu_partition() to modify the PMU driver's
> > > > cntr_mask of available counters to exclude the counters being reserved
> > > > for the guest and record reserved_guest_counters as the maximum
> > > > allowable value for HPMN.
> > > >
> > > > Due to the difficulty this feature would create for the driver running
> > > > at EL1 on the host, partitioning is only allowed in VHE mode. Working
> > > > on nVHE mode would require a hypercall for every counter access in the
> > > > driver because the counters reserved for the host by HPMN are only
> > > > accessible to EL2.
> 
> > > It would be good if we could elaborate on this last point. When exactly
> > > do we intend to configure HPMN (e.g. is that static, dynamic at
> > > load/put, or dynamic at finer granularity)?
> 
> > > I ask becuase it's not immediately clear to me how this would break nVHE
> > > without also breaking direct userspace access on VHE, unless we flip
> > > HPMN dynamically at load/put, and this is only broken in some transient
> > > windows on nVHE.
> 
> > Agree that KVM's HPMN can only take effect between vcpu_load() /
> > vcpu_put().
> 
> > The changelog isn't correct regarding the complications of nVHE, though.
> > In order to support a 'partitioned' PMU on nVHE we'd need to explicitly
> > disable guest counters on every exit and reset HPMN to place all
> > counters in the 'first range'. Unless someone has a use case for this
> > stuff on nVHE I'm not too bothered by the VHE-only limitation.
> 
> I'll fix this.
> 
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h   | 14 ++++++
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/arm_pmuv3.h |  5 ++
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pmu.h   |  6 +++
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile            |  2 +-
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-part.c          | 23 ++++++++++
> 
> > > Maybe I'll contradict Oliver and Marc here (and whatever they say
> > > rules), but IMO it'd be nice to spell out "partition" rather than "part"
> > > here for clarity.
> 
> > I'm not too big of a fan of the naming here either. I'd prefer something
> > like "pmu-direct". Partitioning is just a side effect of how we're
> > allocating counters currently and most of this implementation could be
> > reused if we pass the entire PMU to the guest in the future.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > With that being said -- Colton I'd focus on getting these patches in
> > shape while we figure out what color we want it ;-)
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Oliver
> 
> Trust me I'm working on it.

I know you are -- this comment wasn't meant to add pressure to you. Just
noting that we might bikeshed a bit further on the naming here but I
wouldn't worry much about it for the time being.

sed isn't _that_ difficult :)

Thanks,
Oliver