From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453A7C31E45 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:31:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD7F20644 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="RN6yQ/nR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392580AbfFMQbP (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:31:15 -0400 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.142.138]:44030 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730889AbfFMI16 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8B62489B9; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail02.efficios.com [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id QHJmLqleYeRS; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484792489B3; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 484792489B3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1560414476; bh=DKUdPP8QewPcULFHQ4nNVUH6OyOARFLzUileql0AfD4=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=RN6yQ/nRSeXb+h+A6bJAgudOIpsM4HOtI50An+x6EKgJr+9dVyIV9hEp5vJ0VXiwf fZpgMAMgKKHzkVsVy8AcdE61opOS0vnwgZjhh9b344RQnmNE3s2sdvaGJKPpZZlBLk 2PKI0KwbZIQbmIe9vezfiPODrlV/T8k0KWNk1jL4FhURJAhRWl7rsq7Coiq4m0giSS U047pKX1xNgT28cX6gPNFCQvEdtl256QaypkbIfXnhlY5O4hQy19Fqdvvgcx6nqkoQ 7TMwj8kNxjejvWFczXW0SSyT6cYTCidPH0cdBCRFlxAaLye0x7QbJiaOA7HKeP1bep aUeWnNOBSs/Jw== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail02.efficios.com [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id g8HEodOTGNtd; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail02.efficios.com (mail02.efficios.com [167.114.142.138]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A60A2489A5; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:27:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Raphael Gault Cc: Mark Rutland , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon Message-ID: <1209580932.46461.1560414476136.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20190611125315.18736-1-raphael.gault@arm.com> <20190611125315.18736-4-raphael.gault@arm.com> <20190611143346.GB28689@kernel.org> <20190611165755.GG29008@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <1620360283.42036.1560281622707.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] perf: arm64: Use rseq to test userspace access to pmu counters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.114.142.138] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.12_GA_3803 (ZimbraWebClient - FF67 (Linux)/8.8.12_GA_3794) Thread-Topic: perf: arm64: Use rseq to test userspace access to pmu counters Thread-Index: 9ubg2q5ItojJmCg9sl7e6XSnaMmSwg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- On Jun 13, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Raphael Gault raphael.gault@arm.com wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > On 6/11/19 8:33 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote: >> >>> Hi Arnaldo, >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:33:46AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>>> Em Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:53:11PM +0100, Raphael Gault escreveu: >>>>> Add an extra test to check userspace access to pmu hardware counters. >>>>> This test doesn't rely on the seqlock as a synchronisation mechanism but >>>>> instead uses the restartable sequences to make sure that the thread is >>>>> not interrupted when reading the index of the counter and the associated >>>>> pmu register. >>>>> >>>>> In addition to reading the pmu counters, this test is run several time >>>>> in order to measure the ratio of failures: >>>>> I ran this test on the Juno development platform, which is big.LITTLE >>>>> with 4 Cortex A53 and 2 Cortex A57. The results vary quite a lot >>>>> (running it with 100 tests is not so long and I did it several times). >>>>> I ran it once with 10000 iterations: >>>>> `runs: 10000, abort: 62.53%, zero: 34.93%, success: 2.54%` >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gault >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/arch-tests.h | 5 +- >>>>> tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/rseq-arm64.h | 220 ++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> So, I applied the first patch in this series, but could you please break >>>> this patch into at least two, one introducing the facility >>>> (include/rseq*) and the second adding the test? >>>> >>>> We try to enforce this kind of granularity as down the line we may want >>>> to revert one part while the other already has other uses and thus >>>> wouldn't allow a straight revert. >>>> >>>> Also, can this go to tools/arch/ instead? Is this really perf specific? >>>> Isn't there any arch/arm64/include files for the kernel that we could >>>> mirror and have it checked for drift in tools/perf/check-headers.sh? >>> >>> The rseq bits aren't strictly perf specific, and I think the existing >>> bits under tools/testing/selftests/rseq/ could be factored out to common >>> locations under tools/include/ and tools/arch/*/include/. >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> Thanks for CCing me! >> >> Or into a stand-alone librseq project: >> >> https://github.com/compudj/librseq (currently a development branch in >> my own github) >> >> I don't see why this user-space code should sit in the kernel tree. >> It is not tooling-specific. >> >>> >>> From a scan, those already duplicate barriers and other helpers which >>> already have definitions under tools/, which seems unfortunate. :/ >>> >>> Comments below are for Raphael and Matthieu. >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> +static u64 noinline mmap_read_self(void *addr, int cpu) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc = addr; >>>>> + u32 idx = 0; >>>>> + u64 count = 0; >>>>> + >>>>> + asm volatile goto( >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_DEFINE_TABLE(0, 1f, 2f, 3f) >>>>> + "nop\n" >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_STORE_RSEQ_CS(1, 0b, rseq_cs) >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_CMP_CPU_ID(cpu_id, current_cpu_id, 3f) >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_OP_R_LOAD(pc_idx) >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_OP_R_AND(0xFF) >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_OP_R_STORE(idx) >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_OP_R_SUB(0x1) >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_CMP_CPU_ID(cpu_id, current_cpu_id, 3f) >>>>> + "msr pmselr_el0, " RSEQ_ASM_TMP_REG "\n" >>>>> + "isb\n" >>>>> + RSEQ_ASM_CMP_CPU_ID(cpu_id, current_cpu_id, 3f) >> >> I really don't understand why the cpu_id needs to be compared 3 times >> here (?!?) >> >> Explicit comparison of the cpu_id within the rseq critical section >> should be done _once_. >> > > I understand and that's what I thought as well but I got confused with a > comment in (src)/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h which states: > > This CPU number value should always be compared > > against the value of the cpu_id field before performing a rseq > > commit or returning a value read from a data structure indexed > > using the cpu_id_start value. > > I'll remove the unnecessary testing. It needs to be compared at least once, yes. But once is enough. Thanks, Mathieu > > >> If the kernel happens to preempt and migrate the thread while in the >> critical section, it's the kernel's job to move user-space execution >> to the abort handler. >> > [...] > > Thanks, > > -- > Raphael Gault -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com