From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794417665; b=sqzcNxA+aRH74x4blHloCUgeJ89gz8sBpa2KrqXyysGj7VL3+OToNrZZIEcn4p2Qfv6B kwwkrPsUXOVllOhdzmTZ+e+HLHaZdHWaZn6kFEc9VrBXAaJVY9xRocYvJU2UhIlhiP/wV nLJU/438UBHWOcZmYhWt6CZd0Fso+vpSfGaMdacXBuVhlTObadhrpMmR6g15TISzcbohu P3sI017OUjPp2mbc2lft+i187VeSUyXjF/SSYWi9Sru8j6tFXT1PtLYD7cGrLmwLdaHUT mEavNT+4MfObwVyhg/QS7oMCasXbjnufRcqH3zQbMGvdTT15sbYS8bMGlQbqdqA/71w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794417665; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=oHVW7jNgTo/7nIb4CmqK42I4MtbBzqJmNU5KyxcTUvE=; b=3m0i2wd7Bjltyz4Gh2z5xLKFd3ZT0ele/QhmUCZGSBGQhX1A/9ocdzYRSk1w2ZUjYsf1 yfkYFp3PNpH5GMeFJ2+XUtIuUD7pFMXN0YRfczWvhiLyoooIi9pR5kQWFfRoQWKihXnMC 9up7VMcWfmF71siLfe+Br0kixTtkeb7wwklAO/I/Zs+QI4uzb2ad0ifwumN7emz+Xr/+O wzCGjdeqSybUzZUIeWIz1F3pAJuseJmeFZXPdHdylg/BEaNYfCXda3FzUkSX4QPGBXUJM 3spKg0yPsZEXDeuyW6VZyHPtt8GMtdfd3gV+MYwbbr56zimfWlmOJKswuyCAjgTcQVA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=Z3NEcnpz; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2671E606A324 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 17:21:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 2671E606A324 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=Z3NEcnpz Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC441576; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 09:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from raptor (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87BAC3F632; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 09:21:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1794417663; bh=Rf4ebtvltCctbkDc/Gv4WhpuRQ5MW6jqs73z5jo5cb0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Z3NEcnpzN+rb8IhiTNoLslEyKdoUWksMEpnQHcWQAB7rr/bq5YHO2aUh9LZBJb9kZ NVJ4FctJSnEOQvL9bv8EUE5im5n3NvHjBD2tLY/0pcjk8MmodxdQ9Z4LUMN0lfvE87 XlML061p/+aCR23TsCURNUlK6CPGFo+EFvOdFTcc= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 17:20:08 +0000 From: Alexandru Elisei To: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" 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> X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hi, On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 04:12:27PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > I think probably some kind of commit message would be good even for a > trivial change :) Of course, I'll add something here. > > 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? Indeed, that's a leftover from the previous iterations, will remove. > > > > > /* 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? Fixed. > > > + 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? In this use case they are functionally the same, yes, but conceptually, they are not the same thing. spe_pmu->features advertises the features that the SPE *driver* supports, PMSIDR_EL1 advertises the features that the *hardware* implements. The two are not always equal. For example, KVM added handling for the PMSNEVFR_EL1 register (added by FEAT_SPE_FnE), a few years before the SPE driver supported FEAT_SPE_FnE. I can see KVM, in the future, having to virtualize hardware features not supported by the host driver yet, so unless you have a strong objection, I would rather keep the use of the architectural register instead of relying on the driver. > > 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? I think that's a question for the person who added FEAT_PMU_FEAT_INV_FILT_EVT? Thanks, Alex