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.
next prev parent 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®