mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com>,
	Anshuman Khandual <Anshuman.Khandual@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <Rob.Herring@arm.com>,
	Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>,
	Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@arm.com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: arm_spe: Add barrier before enabling profiling buffer
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 10:46:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aebe99ad-1189-4372-83e3-385f33829bd2@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYD08d42SewAAQCB@willie-the-truck>



On 02/02/2026 7:03 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 04:03:53PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>> The Arm ARM known issues document [1] states that the architecture will
>> be relaxed so that the profiling buffer must be correctly configured
>> when ProfilingBufferEnabled() && !SPEProfilingStopped() &&
>> PMBLIMITR_EL1.FM != DISCARD:
>>
>>    R24557
>>
>>    While the Profiling Buffer is enabled, profiling is not stopped, and
>>    Discard mode is not enabled, all of the following must be true:
>>
>>    * The current write pointer must be at least one sample record below
>>      the write limit pointer.
>>
>> The same relaxation also says that writes may be completely ignored:
>>
>>    When the Profiling Buffer is enabled, profiling is not stopped, and
>>    Discard mode is not enabled, the PE might ignore a direct write to any
>>    of the following Profiling Buffer registers, other than a direct write
>>    to PMBLIMITR_EL1 that clears PMBLIMITR_EL1.E from 1 to 0:
>>
>>    * The current write pointer, PMBPTR_EL1.
>>    * The Limit pointer, PMBLIMITR_EL1.
>>    * PMBSR_EL1.
> 
> Thinking about this some more, does that mean that the direct write to
> PMBPTR_EL1 performs an indirect read of PMBLIMITR_EL1 so that it can
> determine the write-ignore semantics? If so, doesn't that mean that
> we'll get order against a subsequent direct write of PMBLIMITR_EL1
> without an ISB thanks to table "D24-1 Synchronization requirements"
> which says that an indirect read followed by a direct write doesn't
> require synchronisation?
> 
> There's also a sentence above the table stating:
> 
> "Direct writes to System registers are not allowed to affect any
>   instructions appearing in program order before the direct write."
> 
> so after all that, I'm not really sure why the ISB is required.
> 
> Will

We were under the impression that this was required for the SPU as it is 
treated as a separate entity than the PE.

In "D17.9 Synchronization and Statistical Profiling" there is:

   INDWCG

   A Context Synchronization event guarantees that a direct write to a
   System register made by the PE in program order before the Context
   synchronization event are observable by indirect reads and indirect
   writes of the same System register made by a profiling operation
   relating to a sampled operation in program order after the Context
   synchronization event.

That specifically mentions an indirect read following a direct write, 
which seems to contradict D24-1. Although I thought this is a special 
case for SPE.



  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-03 10:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-23 16:03 James Clark
2026-01-30 20:24 ` Leo Yan
2026-02-02 16:53   ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 18:42     ` Leo Yan
2026-02-02 18:57       ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 19:14         ` Leo Yan
2026-02-03  9:29           ` James Clark
2026-02-03  9:32             ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 19:03 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-03 10:46   ` James Clark [this message]
2026-02-03 11:07     ` Will Deacon
2026-02-06  9:50       ` James Clark
2026-02-19 12:08         ` James Clark
2026-02-19 12:57           ` Will Deacon
2026-02-19 13:51             ` James Clark
2026-02-19 14:03               ` Will Deacon
2026-02-19 14:15                 ` James Clark
2026-02-19 14:30                   ` Mark Rutland

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aebe99ad-1189-4372-83e3-385f33829bd2@linaro.org \
    --to=james.clark@linaro.org \
    --cc=Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com \
    --cc=Anshuman.Khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=Rob.Herring@arm.com \
    --cc=Robin.Murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=leo.yan@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®