From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Pengpeng Hou" <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: riscv: Clear PMU pending interrupt through vendor helper
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:00:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260825080059.5F1431F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260825151001.2-andes-pmu-clear-caplitmus-rv@iscas.ac.cn>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The global `riscv_pmu_irq_mask` is declared as a 32-bit `unsigned int` but initialized with a 64-bit mask, causing dangerous truncation and sign-extension on RV64 systems.
- [High] A spurious PMU interrupt triggers an early return that leaves the hardware performance counters permanently stopped.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] perf: riscv: Clear PMU pending interrupt through vendor helper ---
commit 58e4c92109db4c76ba1174701bb0aa79f0e00c65
Author: Pengpeng Hou <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn>
perf: riscv: Clear PMU pending interrupt through vendor helper
When no hardware counters are in use, the PMU overflow handler clears the
pending interrupt directly in CSR_SIP. This patch modifies the early return
to use ALT_SBI_PMU_OVF_CLEAR_PENDING instead to avoid an out-of-width
shift and the wrong CSR on Andes PMU.
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c b/drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c
> index 50220f7b46d9b..ff95f5f136030 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c
> @@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ static irqreturn_t pmu_sbi_ovf_handler(int irq, void *dev)
> /* Firmware counter don't support overflow yet */
> fidx = find_first_bit(cpu_hw_evt->used_hw_ctrs, RISCV_MAX_COUNTERS);
> if (fidx == RISCV_MAX_COUNTERS) {
> - csr_clear(CSR_SIP, BIT(riscv_pmu_irq_num));
> + ALT_SBI_PMU_OVF_CLEAR_PENDING(riscv_pmu_irq_mask);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does using riscv_pmu_irq_mask here risk
truncation or sign-extension on RV64 systems?
The global riscv_pmu_irq_mask is declared as a 32-bit unsigned int:
drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c:
static unsigned int riscv_pmu_irq_mask;
But it is initialized with a 64-bit mask in pmu_sbi_setup_irqs():
riscv_pmu_irq_mask = BIT(riscv_pmu_irq_num % BITS_PER_LONG);
On RV64, if the PMU IRQ number results in (num % 64) >= 32, the assigned
value is truncated to 0, which would cause ALT_SBI_PMU_OVF_CLEAR_PENDING to
clear nothing and potentially lead to an unrecoverable interrupt storm.
Additionally, if (num % 64) == 31, the 32-bit value 0x80000000 could be
sign-extended to 64-bits by the compiler when placed in a general-purpose
register for the csrc inline assembly, unintentionally clearing bits 31-63
of the interrupt pending CSR.
Would it be better to change the type of riscv_pmu_irq_mask to unsigned
long?
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does the early return for
spurious interrupts leave the hardware performance counters permanently
stopped?
Later in pmu_sbi_ovf_handler(), all active PMU hardware counters are
stopped before reading the overflow status:
drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c:pmu_sbi_ovf_handler() {
...
pmu = to_riscv_pmu(event->pmu);
pmu_sbi_stop_hw_ctrs(pmu);
if (sbi_pmu_snapshot_available())
overflow = sdata->ctr_overflow_mask;
else
ALT_SBI_PMU_OVERFLOW(overflow);
...
/* No overflow bit is set */
if (!overflow)
return IRQ_NONE;
...
}
If a spurious interrupt occurs or overflow evaluates to 0, this early exit
returns IRQ_NONE and bypasses the call to pmu_sbi_start_overflow_mask()
at the end of the function.
Could this silently and permanently break performance sampling on that CPU
until manually restarted by userspace?
> return IRQ_NONE;
> }
>
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260825151001.2-andes-pmu-clear-caplitmus-rv@iscas.ac.cn?part=1
parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-25 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20260825151001.2-andes-pmu-clear-caplitmus-rv@iscas.ac.cn>]
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=20260825080059.5F1431F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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