[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZH2VmOUuZobZMcc/@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 08:58:16 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 03/10] arm64/perf: Add branch stack support in struct
arm_pmu
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:34:21AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This updates 'struct arm_pmu' for branch stack sampling support later. This
> adds a new 'features' element in the structure to track supported features,
> and another 'private' element to encapsulate implementation attributes on a
> given 'struct arm_pmu'. These updates here will help in tracking any branch
> stack sampling support, which is being added later. This also adds a helper
> arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported().
>
> This also enables perf branch stack sampling event on all 'struct arm pmu',
> supporting the feature but after removing the current gate that blocks such
> events unconditionally in armpmu_event_init(). Instead a quick probe can be
> initiated via arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported() to ascertain the support.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Tested-by: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 3 +--
> include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 12 +++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index aada47e3b126..d4a4f2bd89a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -510,8 +510,7 @@ static int armpmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> !cpumask_test_cpu(event->cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus))
> return -ENOENT;
>
> - /* does not support taken branch sampling */
> - if (has_branch_stack(event))
> + if (has_branch_stack(event) && !arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(armpmu))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> return __hw_perf_event_init(event);
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> index f7fbd162ca4c..0da745eaf426 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -102,7 +102,9 @@ struct arm_pmu {
> int (*map_event)(struct perf_event *event);
> void (*sched_task)(struct perf_event_pmu_context *pmu_ctx, bool sched_in);
> int num_events;
> - bool secure_access; /* 32-bit ARM only */
> + unsigned int secure_access : 1, /* 32-bit ARM only */
> + has_branch_stack: 1, /* 64-bit ARM only */
> + reserved : 30;
> #define ARMV8_PMUV3_MAX_COMMON_EVENTS 0x40
> DECLARE_BITMAP(pmceid_bitmap, ARMV8_PMUV3_MAX_COMMON_EVENTS);
> #define ARMV8_PMUV3_EXT_COMMON_EVENT_BASE 0x4000
> @@ -118,8 +120,16 @@ struct arm_pmu {
>
> /* Only to be used by ACPI probing code */
> unsigned long acpi_cpuid;
> +
> + /* Implementation specific attributes */
> + void *private;
> };
>
> +static inline bool arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
> +{
> + return armpmu->has_branch_stack;
> +}
Since this is a trivial test, and we already access the 'secure_access' field
directly, I'd prefer we removed this helper and directly accessesed
arm_pmu::has_branch_stack, e.g. with the logic in armpmu_event_init() being:
if (has_branch_stack(event) && !armpmu->has_branch_stack)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
With that:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists