From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81CCC3D3334; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 15:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792077155; cv=none; b=g6ifBimThlOIw0SVlv9Jg1mb+haH24x11EfeHTA4zi6V1i196+6bIcbIKoOnOx9e6bwb7fC8g9EVp9CLDEXHwLyQc0sLN/E8jvJuLXDBTPZUtCbuOYAxMGTlEV4hCgV6za5Ck8rrhuU5AxGAMuH+gGZV8iRt5VmsvN3bHyMCusE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792077155; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iRqFUSfucGkRKagxk4DNzWp4TjCjOWGnYfw0KuL7EVE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X6Wsf8huVlJt/W4Wg4AugUwPGStQZ2+lHl6NQTmXYYXnbh6I935AwCUWgWxEpF0fKyqgJJwI3pMOA0LnQTcxn7abZQUMg/7CH+vZz10/4lENA/YcGs8VdobqEj7sAwCLqIKKjkjV/ArRYGTYrVKQv4nFNQgAxjO13ZK/wc06pns= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mdfkOMDJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mdfkOMDJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5BEE1F000C4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 15:12:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792077154; bh=pDysuJEmkn56+CM/E4w11SG7z498s3kgZNwLNIegyhA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=mdfkOMDJ373ZTRSsel6xAqKp56bgKqPc74+HCWaRsr/BXshNIg0+BI0N5ct5cSy4f EYfiY1qumnhTtQrTKSyZ0UBEzfv7OPUy9cdZlhoioRbvqh3UUdomLdb3Jr//K5EMAP 4BKZW4/rrP0Je1eeMmflj4iCl0P0LsmnrbLU/1URiXeEgStp6tXlfOSANV3Qd9LhAY nTP7Vq7SFkn3okOzi4t1+PAJnMD8DhJCgHXXm8SoMzKpoHJrQK2cbay9/z4vLlbUZM 3wjeqTan05GLzTkPEYGDSdhg3gHFzhFXvu3Q+hStVmineVko+EbmVyvoUpc3YoVwKp ZopVDUvC6lKLw== Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 16:12:27 +0100 From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" To: Alexandru Elisei Cc: maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, fuad.tabba@linux.dev, joey.gouly@arm.com, seiden@linux.ibm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, james.clark@linaro.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 05/28] perf: arm_spe_pmu: Add PMBIDR_EL1 and PMSIDR_EL1 to struct arm_spe_pmu Message-ID: References: <20260903160623.315525-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <20260903160623.315525-6-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260903160623.315525-6-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> I think probably some kind of commit message would be good even for a trivial change :) On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 05:06:00PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei > --- > drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c | 3 +++ > include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c > index 79c571a649d5..42ba0924bd02 100644 > --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c > +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c > @@ -1095,6 +1095,7 @@ static void __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe(void *info) > "profiling buffer owned by higher exception level\n"); > return; > } > + spe_pmu->pmbidr_el1 = reg; This doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the series? > > /* Minimum alignment. If it's out-of-range, then fail the probe */ > fld = FIELD_GET(PMBIDR_EL1_ALIGN, reg); > @@ -1107,6 +1108,8 @@ static void __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe(void *info) > > /* It's now safe to read PMSIDR and figure out what we've got */ > reg = read_sysreg_s(SYS_PMSIDR_EL1); > + spe_pmu->pmsidr_el1 = reg; > + > if (FIELD_GET(PMSIDR_EL1_FE, reg)) > spe_pmu->features |= SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT; > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h > index af86fd184050..97b14e236fcd 100644 > --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h > +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h > @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ struct arm_spe_pmu { > cpumask_t supported_cpus; > struct hlist_node hotplug_node; > > + u64 pmbidr_el1; Equally, this doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the series, maybe drop? > + u64 pmsidr_el1; This field is used in kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fds() and kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fne(): bool kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fds(struct kvm *kvm) { ... return kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, PMSVer, V1P4) && FIELD_GET(PMSIDR_EL1_FDS, spe_pmu->pmsidr_el1); } bool kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fne(struct kvm *kvm) { ... return kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, PMSVer, V1P2) && FIELD_GET(PMSIDR_EL1_FnE, spe_pmu->pmsidr_el1); } So checking for FDS and FnE, but these are available as feature flags as __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe() gets these: static void __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe(void *info) { ... if (FIELD_GET(PMSIDR_EL1_FnE, reg)) spe_pmu->features |= SPE_PMU_FEAT_INV_FILT_EVT; ... if (FIELD_GET(PMSIDR_EL1_FDS, reg)) spe_pmu->features |= SPE_PMU_FEAT_FDS; ... } And then kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fds() and kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fne() can be: bool kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fds(struct kvm *kvm) { ... return kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, PMSVer, V1P4) && (spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FDS); } bool kvm_spe_has_feat_spe_fne(struct kvm *kvm) { ... return kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, PMSVer, V1P2) && (spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_INV_FILT_EVT); } Right? So it seems you could drop this patch from the series in general? Is there another reason to get these fields? Also - there seems to be a divergence in the naming there between FnE and INV_FILT_EVT, is that intentional? -- Cheers, Lorenzo