| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZImdkHxE6kX+dT5e@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:59:28 +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 08/10] arm64/perf: Add struct brbe_regset helper
functions
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:44:38AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 6/13/23 22:47, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * This scans over BRBE register banks and captures individual branch reocrds
> >> + * [BRBSRC, BRBTGT, BRBINF] into a pre-allocated 'struct brbe_regset' buffer,
> >> + * until an invalid one gets encountered. The caller for this function needs
> >> + * to ensure BRBE is an appropriate state before the records can be captured.
> >> + */
> >> +static int capture_brbe_regset(struct brbe_hw_attr *brbe_attr, struct brbe_regset *buf)
> >> +{
> >> + int loop1_idx1, loop1_idx2, loop2_idx1, loop2_idx2;
> >> + int idx, count;
> >> +
> >> + loop1_idx1 = BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MIN;
> >> + if (brbe_attr->brbe_nr <= BRBE_BANK_MAX_ENTRIES) {
> >> + loop1_idx2 = brbe_attr->brbe_nr - 1;
> >> + loop2_idx1 = BRBE_BANK1_IDX_MIN;
> >> + loop2_idx2 = BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MAX;
> >> + } else {
> >> + loop1_idx2 = BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MAX;
> >> + loop2_idx1 = BRBE_BANK1_IDX_MIN;
> >> + loop2_idx2 = brbe_attr->brbe_nr - 1;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_0);
> >> + for (idx = 0, count = loop1_idx1; count <= loop1_idx2; idx++, count++) {
> >> + buf[idx].brbinf = get_brbinf_reg(idx);
> >> + /*
> >> + * There are no valid entries anymore on the buffer.
> >> + * Abort the branch record processing to save some
> >> + * cycles and also reduce the capture/process load
> >> + * for the user space as well.
> >> + */
> >> + if (brbe_invalid(buf[idx].brbinf))
> >> + return idx;
> >> +
> >> + buf[idx].brbsrc = get_brbsrc_reg(idx);
> >> + buf[idx].brbtgt = get_brbtgt_reg(idx);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_1);
> >> + for (count = loop2_idx1; count <= loop2_idx2; idx++, count++) {
> >> + buf[idx].brbinf = get_brbinf_reg(idx);
> >> + /*
> >> + * There are no valid entries anymore on the buffer.
> >> + * Abort the branch record processing to save some
> >> + * cycles and also reduce the capture/process load
> >> + * for the user space as well.
> >> + */
> >> + if (brbe_invalid(buf[idx].brbinf))
> >> + return idx;
> >> +
> >> + buf[idx].brbsrc = get_brbsrc_reg(idx);
> >> + buf[idx].brbtgt = get_brbtgt_reg(idx);
> >> + }
> >> + return idx;
> >> +}
> >
> > As with __armv8pmu_branch_read(), the loop conditions are a bit hard to follow,
> > and I believe that can be rewritten along the lines of the suggestion there.
>
> I have changed both the places (in separate patches) with suggested loop structure.
>
> >
> > Looking at this, we now have a couple of places that will try to read the
> > registers for an individual record, so it probably makes sense to facotr that
> > into a helper, e.g.
>
> There are indeed two places inside capture_brbe_regset() - one for each bank.
>
> >
> > | static bool __read_brbe_regset(struct brbe_regset *entry, int idx)
> > | {
> > | u64 brbinf = get_brbinf_reg(idx);
> > |
> > | if (brbe_invalid(brbinf))
> > | return false;
> > |
> > | entry->brbinf = brbinf;
> > | entry->brbsrc = get_brbsrc_reg(idx);
> > | entry->brbtgt = get_brbtgt_reg(idx);
> > |
> > | return true;
> > | }
> >
> > ... which can be used here, e.g.
> >
> > | /*
> > | * Capture all records before the first invalid record, and return the number
> > | * of records captured.
> > | */
> > | static int capture_brbe_regset(struct brbe_hw_attr *brbe_attr, struct brbe_regset *buf)
> > | {
> > |
> > | int nr_entries = brbe_attr->brbe_nr;
> > | int idx = 0;
> > |
> > | select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_0);
> > | while (idx < nr_entries && IDX < BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MAX) {
> > | if (__read_brbe_regset(&buf[idx], idx))
>
> It should test !_read_brbe_regset(&buf[idx], idx)) instead as the error
> case returns false.
Yes, my bad.
> >> +static int stitch_stored_live_entries(struct brbe_regset *stored,
> >> + struct brbe_regset *live,
> >> + int nr_stored, int nr_live,
> >> + int nr_max)
> >> +{
> >> + int nr_total, nr_excess, nr_last, i;
> >> +
> >> + nr_total = nr_stored + nr_live;
> >> + nr_excess = nr_total - nr_max;
> >> +
> >> + /* Stored branch records in stitched buffer */
> >> + if (nr_live == nr_max)
> >> + nr_stored = 0;
> >> + else if (nr_excess > 0)
> >> + nr_stored -= nr_excess;
> >> +
> >> + /* Stitched buffer branch records length */
> >> + if (nr_total > nr_max)
> >> + nr_last = nr_max;
> >> + else
> >> + nr_last = nr_total;
> >> +
> >> + /* Move stored branch records */
> >> + for (i = 0; i < nr_stored; i++)
> >> + copy_brbe_regset(stored, i, stored, nr_last - nr_stored - 1 + i);
> >> +
> >> + /* Copy live branch records */
> >> + for (i = 0; i < nr_live; i++)
> >> + copy_brbe_regset(live, i, stored, i);
> >> +
> >> + return nr_last;
> >> +}
> >
> > I think this can be written more simply as something like:
> >
> > static int stitch_stored_live_entries(struct brbe_regset *stored,
> > struct brbe_regset *live,
> > int nr_stored, int nr_live,
> > int nr_max)
> > {
> > int nr_move = max(nr_stored, nr_max - nr_live);
>
> Should this compare be min() instead ?
Yup, my bad again. That should be min().
> > /* Move the tail of the buffer to make room for the new entries */
> > memmove(&stored[nr_live], &stored[0], nr_move * sizeof(*stored));
> >
> > /* Copy the new entries into the head of the buffer */
> > memcpy(stored[0], &live[0], nr_live * sizeof(*stored));
> >
> > /* Return the number of entries in the stitched buffer */
> > return min(nr_live + nr_stored, nr_max);
> > }
>
> Otherwise this makes sense and simpler, will rework.
Great!
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists