[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5bcc9ffb-62a0-4b98-9b41-9cf1786751a6@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 11:34:24 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 02/11] perf: arm_pmu: Don't disable counter in
armpmu_add()
On 2/3/25 06:12, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>
> Currently armpmu_add() tries to handle a newly-allocated counter having
> a stale associated event, but this should not be possible, and if this
A stale associated event ? Does that mean hw_events->events[idx] still
points to a valid event even though counter idx has already been freed
up and allocated to a new event.
> were to happen the current mitigation is insufficient and potentially
> expensive. It would be better to warn if we encounter the impossible
> case.
Makes sense.
>
> Calls to pmu::add() and pmu::del() are serialized by the core perf code,
> and armpmu_del() clears the relevant slot in pmu_hw_events::events[]
> before clearing the bit in pmu_hw_events::used_mask such that the
> counter can be reallocated. Thus when armpmu_add() allocates a counter
> index from pmu_hw_events::used_mask, it should not be possible to observe
> a stale even in pmu_hw_events::events[] unless either
> pmu_hw_events::used_mask or pmu_hw_events::events[] have been corrupted.
>
> If this were to happen, we'd end up with two events with the same
> event->hw.idx, which would clash with each other during reprogramming,
> deletion, etc, and produce bogus results. Add a WARN_ON_ONCE() for this
> case so that we can detect if this ever occurs in practice.
Agreed.
>
> That possiblity aside, there's no need to call arm_pmu::disable(event)
s/possiblity/possibility
> for the new event. The PMU reset code initialises the counter in a
> disabled state, and armpmu_del() will disable the counter before it can
> be reused. Remove the redundant disable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@...nel.org>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 8 +++-----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index 398cce3d76fc..2f33e69a8caf 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -342,12 +342,10 @@ armpmu_add(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
> if (idx < 0)
> return idx;
>
> - /*
> - * If there is an event in the counter we are going to use then make
> - * sure it is disabled.
> - */
> + /* The newly-allocated counter should be empty */
Should this comment also include what happens when two events some how end
up using the same 'event->hw.idx' as mentioned in the commit message, just
to make things clearer.
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(hw_events->events[idx]);
> +
> event->hw.idx = idx;
> - armpmu->disable(event);
> hw_events->events[idx] = event;
>
> hwc->state = PERF_HES_STOPPED | PERF_HES_UPTODATE;
>
Otherwise LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists