linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] perf: add arm64 smmuv3 pmu driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:25:19 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Cc:     "lorenzo.pieralisi@....com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "vkilari@...eaurora.org" <vkilari@...eaurora.org>,
        "neil.m.leeder@...il.com" <neil.m.leeder@...il.com>,
        "jean-philippe.brucker@....com" <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
        "pabba@...eaurora.org" <pabba@...eaurora.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "rruigrok@...eaurora.org" <rruigrok@...eaurora.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] perf: add arm64 smmuv3 pmu driver

On 23/01/2019 12:14, Andrew Murray wrote:
[...]
>>>> +static inline void smmu_pmu_counter_set_value(struct smmu_pmu
>>> *smmu_pmu,
>>>> +					      u32 idx, u64 value)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (smmu_pmu->counter_mask & BIT(32))
>>>> +		writeq(value, smmu_pmu->reloc_base + SMMU_PMCG_EVCNTR(idx,
>>> 8));
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		writel(value, smmu_pmu->reloc_base + SMMU_PMCG_EVCNTR(idx,
>>> 4));
>>>
>>> The arm64 IO macros use __force u32 and so it's probably OK to provide a 64
>>> bit
>>> value to writel. But you could use something like lower_32_bits for clarity.
>>
>> Yes, macro uses __force u32. I will change it to make it more clear though.

To be pedantic, the first cast which the value actually undergoes is to 
(__u32) ;)

Ultimately, __raw_writel() takes a u32, so in that sense it's never a 
problem to pass a u64, since unsigned truncation is well-defined in the 
C standard. The casting involved in the I/O accessors is mostly about 
going to an endian-specific type and back again.

[...]
>>>> +static void smmu_pmu_event_start(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu = to_smmu_pmu(event->pmu);
>>>> +	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
>>>> +	int idx = hwc->idx;
>>>> +	u32 filter_span, filter_sid;
>>>> +	u32 evtyper;
>>>> +
>>>> +	hwc->state = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_set_period(smmu_pmu, hwc);
>>>> +
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_get_event_filter(event, &filter_span, &filter_sid);
>>>> +
>>>> +	evtyper = get_event(event) |
>>>> +		  filter_span << SMMU_PMCG_SID_SPAN_SHIFT;
>>>> +
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_set_evtyper(smmu_pmu, idx, evtyper);
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_set_smr(smmu_pmu, idx, filter_sid);
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_interrupt_enable(smmu_pmu, idx);
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_counter_enable(smmu_pmu, idx);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void smmu_pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu = to_smmu_pmu(event->pmu);
>>>> +	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
>>>> +	int idx = hwc->idx;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (hwc->state & PERF_HES_STOPPED)
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +
>>>> +	smmu_pmu_counter_disable(smmu_pmu, idx);
>>>
>>> Is it intentional not to call smmu_pmu_interrupt_disable here?
>>
>> Yes, it is. Earlier patch had the interrupt toggling and Robin pointed out that
>> it is not really needed as counters are anyway stopped and explicitly disabling
>> may not solve the spurious interrupt case as well.
>>
> 
> Ah apologies for not seeing that in earlier reviews.

Hmm, I didn't exactly mean "keep enabling it every time an event is 
restarted and never disable it anywhere", though. I was thinking more 
along the lines of enabling in event_add() and disabling in event_del() 
(i.e. effectively tying it to allocation and deallocation of the counter).

Robin.