| Message ID | 1456290520-10012-2-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > > To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move > the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them > with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. > > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts in -next. I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way would be: 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new perf_event.h stuff Thoughts? Will [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git perf/updates -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >> >> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move >> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them >> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- >> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts > in -next. > > I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way > would be: > > 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) This way seems not proper I think. > 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. > 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new > perf_event.h stuff > I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. > Thoughts? > Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure whether we could handle this when we merge them. > Will > > [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git perf/updates > > . > Thanks,
Shannon, On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>> >>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move >>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them >>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- >>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >> >> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts >> in -next. >> >> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way >> would be: >> >> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) > This way seems not proper I think. > >> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) > While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile > and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. > >> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new >> perf_event.h stuff >> > I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else > relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. > >> Thoughts? >> > Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure > whether we could handle this when we merge them. I think you're missing the point: - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has posted a resolution for most of the new things). Thoughts? M.
On 29/02/16 13:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Shannon, > > On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> >> >> On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move >>>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them >>>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- >>>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >>> >>> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts >>> in -next. >>> >>> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way >>> would be: >>> >>> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) >> This way seems not proper I think. >> >>> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) >> While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile >> and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. >> >>> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new >>> perf_event.h stuff >>> >> I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else >> relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. >> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure >> whether we could handle this when we merge them. > > I think you're missing the point: > > - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge > - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve > - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree > > With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 > > Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last > patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has > posted a resolution for most of the new things). For the record, here's the patch I propose we merge once everything gets into mainline: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=ba1e09b2f2cd2d5cc5cfdb76e96460aee1bd9482 M.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:59:49PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 29/02/16 13:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > >>>> > >>>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move > >>>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them > >>>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > >>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- > >>>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts > >>> in -next. > >>> > >>> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way > >>> would be: > >>> > >>> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) > >> This way seems not proper I think. > >> > >>> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) > >> While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile > >> and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. > >> > >>> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new > >>> perf_event.h stuff > >>> > >> I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else > >> relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. > >> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >> Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure > >> whether we could handle this when we merge them. > > > > I think you're missing the point: > > > > - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge > > - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve > > - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree > > > > With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 > > > > Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last > > patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has > > posted a resolution for most of the new things). > > For the record, here's the patch I propose we merge once everything gets > into mainline: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=ba1e09b2f2cd2d5cc5cfdb76e96460aee1bd9482 I just spotted a bug in my perf/updates branch, so this might need to change ever so slightly. Easiest thing is probably to cook something against -next once we're nearer the merge window and things have settled down. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:07:23PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > >>> > >>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move > >>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them > >>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> > >>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > >>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> > >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- > >>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > >> > >> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts > >> in -next. > >> > >> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way > >> would be: > >> > >> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) > > This way seems not proper I think. > > > >> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) > > While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile > > and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. > > > >> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new > >> perf_event.h stuff > >> > > I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else > > relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. > > > >> Thoughts? > >> > > Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure > > whether we could handle this when we merge them. > > I think you're missing the point: > > - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge > - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve > - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree > > With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 29/02/16 15:41, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:59:49PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 29/02/16 13:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>> On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move >>>>>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them >>>>>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts >>>>> in -next. >>>>> >>>>> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way >>>>> would be: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) >>>> This way seems not proper I think. >>>> >>>>> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) >>>> While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile >>>> and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. >>>> >>>>> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new >>>>> perf_event.h stuff >>>>> >>>> I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else >>>> relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. >>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>> Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure >>>> whether we could handle this when we merge them. >>> >>> I think you're missing the point: >>> >>> - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge >>> - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve >>> - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree >>> >>> With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 >>> >>> Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last >>> patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has >>> posted a resolution for most of the new things). >> >> For the record, here's the patch I propose we merge once everything gets >> into mainline: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=ba1e09b2f2cd2d5cc5cfdb76e96460aee1bd9482 > > I just spotted a bug in my perf/updates branch, so this might need to > change ever so slightly. Easiest thing is probably to cook something > against -next once we're nearer the merge window and things have settled > down. Amusingly enough, it looks like the KVM code suffers from the exact same bug (PMCR_EL0.LC is outside of the writeable mask). I'll fix the KVM side, and keep the cleanup patch on the back burner. Thanks for the heads up, M.
On 2016/2/29 21:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Shannon, > > On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> >> >> On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move >>>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them >>>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- >>>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >>> >>> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts >>> in -next. >>> >>> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way >>> would be: >>> >>> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) >> This way seems not proper I think. >> >>> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) >> While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile >> and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. >> >>> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new >>> perf_event.h stuff >>> >> I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else >> relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. >> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure >> whether we could handle this when we merge them. > > I think you're missing the point: > > - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge > - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve > - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree > Ah, sorry. I realized this later. > With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 > > Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last > patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has > posted a resolution for most of the new things). > > Thoughts? > It's fine I think. (It's first time to me to face this kind of problem. :)). Thanks for your help.
On 29/02/16 18:50, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2016/2/29 21:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> Shannon, >> >> On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move >>>>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them >>>>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- >>>>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts >>>> in -next. >>>> >>>> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way >>>> would be: >>>> >>>> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) >>> This way seems not proper I think. >>> >>>> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) >>> While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile >>> and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. >>> >>>> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new >>>> perf_event.h stuff >>>> >>> I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else >>> relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. >>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>> Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure >>> whether we could handle this when we merge them. >> >> I think you're missing the point: >> >> - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge >> - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve >> - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree >> > Ah, sorry. I realized this later. > >> With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 >> >> Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last >> patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has >> posted a resolution for most of the new things). >> >> Thoughts? >> > It's fine I think. (It's first time to me to face this kind of problem. > :)). Thanks for your help. No worries. I've taken this patch plus most of your v14 series and the v15 patch that you posted here, and applied the whole thing on top of kvmarm/next (having rejigged a couple of things there). I've also fixed the definition of ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK to take PMCR_EL0.LC into account. Please give it a go. Any fix will should now come as a patch on top of this branch. Thanks, M.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h index 7bd3cdb..5c77ef8 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h @@ -17,6 +17,41 @@ #ifndef __ASM_PERF_EVENT_H #define __ASM_PERF_EVENT_H +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS 32 +#define ARMV8_PMU_COUNTER_MASK (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) + +/* + * Per-CPU PMCR: config reg + */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E (1 << 0) /* Enable all counters */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_P (1 << 1) /* Reset all counters */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_C (1 << 2) /* Cycle counter reset */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_D (1 << 3) /* CCNT counts every 64th cpu cycle */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_X (1 << 4) /* Export to ETM */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_DP (1 << 5) /* Disable CCNT if non-invasive debug*/ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT 11 /* Number of counters supported */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK 0x1f +#define ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK 0x3f /* Mask for writable bits */ + +/* + * PMOVSR: counters overflow flag status reg + */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_OVSR_MASK 0xffffffff /* Mask for writable bits */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_OVERFLOWED_MASK ARMV8_PMU_OVSR_MASK + +/* + * PMXEVTYPER: Event selection reg + */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_MASK 0xc80003ff /* Mask for writable bits */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT 0x3ff /* Mask for EVENT bits */ + +/* + * Event filters for PMUv3 + */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1 (1 << 31) +#define ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0 (1 << 30) +#define ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2 (1 << 27) + #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS struct pt_regs; extern unsigned long perf_instruction_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs); diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c index f7ab14c..212c9fc4 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/perf/arm_pmu.h> #include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include <asm/perf_event.h> /* * ARMv8 PMUv3 Performance Events handling code. @@ -333,9 +334,6 @@ static const struct attribute_group *armv8_pmuv3_attr_groups[] = { #define ARMV8_IDX_COUNTER_LAST(cpu_pmu) \ (ARMV8_IDX_CYCLE_COUNTER + cpu_pmu->num_events - 1) -#define ARMV8_MAX_COUNTERS 32 -#define ARMV8_COUNTER_MASK (ARMV8_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) - /* * ARMv8 low level PMU access */ @@ -344,39 +342,7 @@ static const struct attribute_group *armv8_pmuv3_attr_groups[] = { * Perf Event to low level counters mapping */ #define ARMV8_IDX_TO_COUNTER(x) \ - (((x) - ARMV8_IDX_COUNTER0) & ARMV8_COUNTER_MASK) - -/* - * Per-CPU PMCR: config reg - */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_E (1 << 0) /* Enable all counters */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_P (1 << 1) /* Reset all counters */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_C (1 << 2) /* Cycle counter reset */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_D (1 << 3) /* CCNT counts every 64th cpu cycle */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_X (1 << 4) /* Export to ETM */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_DP (1 << 5) /* Disable CCNT if non-invasive debug*/ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_N_SHIFT 11 /* Number of counters supported */ -#define ARMV8_PMCR_N_MASK 0x1f -#define ARMV8_PMCR_MASK 0x3f /* Mask for writable bits */ - -/* - * PMOVSR: counters overflow flag status reg - */ -#define ARMV8_OVSR_MASK 0xffffffff /* Mask for writable bits */ -#define ARMV8_OVERFLOWED_MASK ARMV8_OVSR_MASK - -/* - * PMXEVTYPER: Event selection reg - */ -#define ARMV8_EVTYPE_MASK 0xc80003ff /* Mask for writable bits */ -#define ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT 0x3ff /* Mask for EVENT bits */ - -/* - * Event filters for PMUv3 - */ -#define ARMV8_EXCLUDE_EL1 (1 << 31) -#define ARMV8_EXCLUDE_EL0 (1 << 30) -#define ARMV8_INCLUDE_EL2 (1 << 27) + (((x) - ARMV8_IDX_COUNTER0) & ARMV8_PMU_COUNTER_MASK) static inline u32 armv8pmu_pmcr_read(void) { @@ -387,14 +353,14 @@ static inline u32 armv8pmu_pmcr_read(void) static inline void armv8pmu_pmcr_write(u32 val) { - val &= ARMV8_PMCR_MASK; + val &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK; isb(); asm volatile("msr pmcr_el0, %0" :: "r" (val)); } static inline int armv8pmu_has_overflowed(u32 pmovsr) { - return pmovsr & ARMV8_OVERFLOWED_MASK; + return pmovsr & ARMV8_PMU_OVERFLOWED_MASK; } static inline int armv8pmu_counter_valid(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu, int idx) @@ -453,7 +419,7 @@ static inline void armv8pmu_write_counter(struct perf_event *event, u32 value) static inline void armv8pmu_write_evtype(int idx, u32 val) { if (armv8pmu_select_counter(idx) == idx) { - val &= ARMV8_EVTYPE_MASK; + val &= ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_MASK; asm volatile("msr pmxevtyper_el0, %0" :: "r" (val)); } } @@ -499,7 +465,7 @@ static inline u32 armv8pmu_getreset_flags(void) asm volatile("mrs %0, pmovsclr_el0" : "=r" (value)); /* Write to clear flags */ - value &= ARMV8_OVSR_MASK; + value &= ARMV8_PMU_OVSR_MASK; asm volatile("msr pmovsclr_el0, %0" :: "r" (value)); return value; @@ -637,7 +603,7 @@ static void armv8pmu_start(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu) raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&events->pmu_lock, flags); /* Enable all counters */ - armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() | ARMV8_PMCR_E); + armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&events->pmu_lock, flags); } @@ -648,7 +614,7 @@ static void armv8pmu_stop(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu) raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&events->pmu_lock, flags); /* Disable all counters */ - armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() & ~ARMV8_PMCR_E); + armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() & ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&events->pmu_lock, flags); } @@ -658,7 +624,7 @@ static int armv8pmu_get_event_idx(struct pmu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx; struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu); struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw; - unsigned long evtype = hwc->config_base & ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT; + unsigned long evtype = hwc->config_base & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT; /* Always place a cycle counter into the cycle counter. */ if (evtype == ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CLOCK_CYCLES) { @@ -692,11 +658,11 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event, if (attr->exclude_idle) return -EPERM; if (attr->exclude_user) - config_base |= ARMV8_EXCLUDE_EL0; + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0; if (attr->exclude_kernel) - config_base |= ARMV8_EXCLUDE_EL1; + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; if (!attr->exclude_hv) - config_base |= ARMV8_INCLUDE_EL2; + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; /* * Install the filter into config_base as this is used to @@ -719,28 +685,28 @@ static void armv8pmu_reset(void *info) } /* Initialize & Reset PMNC: C and P bits. */ - armv8pmu_pmcr_write(ARMV8_PMCR_P | ARMV8_PMCR_C); + armv8pmu_pmcr_write(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_P | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_C); } static int armv8_pmuv3_map_event(struct perf_event *event) { return armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_pmuv3_perf_map, &armv8_pmuv3_perf_cache_map, - ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT); + ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT); } static int armv8_a53_map_event(struct perf_event *event) { return armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_a53_perf_map, &armv8_a53_perf_cache_map, - ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT); + ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT); } static int armv8_a57_map_event(struct perf_event *event) { return armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_a57_perf_map, &armv8_a57_perf_cache_map, - ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT); + ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT); } static void armv8pmu_read_num_pmnc_events(void *info) @@ -748,7 +714,7 @@ static void armv8pmu_read_num_pmnc_events(void *info) int *nb_cnt = info; /* Read the nb of CNTx counters supported from PMNC */ - *nb_cnt = (armv8pmu_pmcr_read() >> ARMV8_PMCR_N_SHIFT) & ARMV8_PMCR_N_MASK; + *nb_cnt = (armv8pmu_pmcr_read() >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK; /* Add the CPU cycles counter */ *nb_cnt += 1;