From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
"lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
"jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com" <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>
Cc: "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"vkilari@codeaurora.org" <vkilari@codeaurora.org>,
"neil.m.leeder@gmail.com" <neil.m.leeder@gmail.com>,
"pabba@codeaurora.org" <pabba@codeaurora.org>,
"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"rruigrok@codeaurora.org" <rruigrok@codeaurora.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/smmuv3_pmu: Enable HiSilicon Erratum 162001800 quirk
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:45:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8e469c3-7ec9-551e-d5bd-6f14b02a8f3f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5FC3163CFD30C246ABAA99954A238FA8387A0575@FRAEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Hi Shameer,
Sorry for the delay...
On 18/10/2018 16:27, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Linuxarm [mailto:linuxarm-bounces@huawei.com] On Behalf Of
>> Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
>> Sent: 18 October 2018 14:34
>> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>; lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com;
>> jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com
>> Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com; vkilari@codeaurora.org;
>> neil.m.leeder@gmail.com; pabba@codeaurora.org; will.deacon@arm.com;
>> rruigrok@codeaurora.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
>> kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/smmuv3_pmu: Enable HiSilicon Erratum
>> 162001800 quirk
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com]
>>> Sent: 18 October 2018 12:44
>>> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>;
>>> lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com; jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com
>>> Cc: will.deacon@arm.com; mark.rutland@arm.com; Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)
>>> <guohanjun@huawei.com>; John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>;
>>> pabba@codeaurora.org; vkilari@codeaurora.org; rruigrok@codeaurora.org;
>>> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
>>> kernel@lists.infradead.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>;
>>> neil.m.leeder@gmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/smmuv3_pmu: Enable HiSilicon Erratum
>>> 162001800 quirk
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +static const struct smmu_pmu_erratum_wa smmu_pmu_wa[] = {
>>>> + {
>>>> + .match_type = se_match_acpi_oem,
>>>> + .id = hisi_162001800_oem_info,
>>>> + .desc_str = "HiSilicon erratum 162001800",
>>>> + .enable = hisi_erratum_evcntr_rdonly,
>>>> + },
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> There's an awful lot of raw ACPI internals splashed about here -
>>> couldn't at least some of it be abstracted behind the IORT code? In
>>> fact, can't IORT just set all this stuff up in advance like it does for
>>> SMMUs?
>>
>> Hmmm.. Sorry, not clear to me. You mean to say associate the IORT node
>> with platform device and retrieve it in driver just like smmu does for
>> "model" checks? Not sure that works here if that’s what the above meant.
I don't think there's much of interest in the actual IORT node itself,
but I can't see that there would be any particular problem with passing
either some implementation identifier or just a ready-made set of quirk
flags to the PMCG driver via platdata.
>>>> #define to_smmu_pmu(p) (container_of(p, struct smmu_pmu, pmu))
>>>>
>>>> #define SMMU_PMU_EVENT_ATTR_EXTRACTOR(_name, _config, _start,
>>> _end) \
>>>> @@ -224,15 +271,20 @@ static void smmu_pmu_set_period(struct
>>> smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu,
>>>> u32 idx = hwc->idx;
>>>> u64 new;
>>>>
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * We limit the max period to half the max counter value of the
>>> counter
>>>> - * size, so that even in the case of extreme interrupt latency the
>>>> - * counter will (hopefully) not wrap past its initial value.
>>>> - */
>>>> - new = smmu_pmu->counter_mask >> 1;
>>>> + if (smmu_pmu->options & SMMU_PMU_OPT_EVCNTR_RDONLY) {
>>>> + new = smmu_pmu_counter_get_value(smmu_pmu, idx);
>>>
>>> Something's clearly missing, because if this happens to start at 0, the
>>> current overflow handling code cannot possibly give the correct count.
>>> Much as I hate the reset-to-half-period idiom for being impossible to
>>> make sense of, it does make various aspects appear a lot simpler than
>>> they really are. Wait, maybe that's yet another reason to hate it...
>>
>> Yes, if the counter starts at 0 and overflow happens, it won't possibly give
>> the correct count compared to the reset-to-half-period logic. Since this is a
>> 64 bit counter, just hope that, it won't necessarily happen that often.
OK, if the full 64 counter bits are implemented, then I suppose we're
probably OK to assume nobody's going to run a single profiling session
over 4+ years or so. It might be worth a comment just to remind
ourselves that we're (currently) relying on the counter size to mostly
mitigate overflow-related issues in this case.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +static void smmu_pmu_enable_errata(struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu,
>>>> + enum smmu_pmu_erratum_match_type type,
>>>> + se_match_fn_t match_fn,
>>>> + void *arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct smmu_pmu_erratum_wa *wa = smmu_pmu_wa;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (; wa->desc_str; wa++) {
>>>> + if (wa->match_type != type)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (match_fn(wa, arg)) {
>>>> + if (wa->enable) {
>>>> + wa->enable(smmu_pmu);
>>>> + dev_info(smmu_pmu->dev,
>>>> + "Enabling workaround for %s\n",
>>>> + wa->desc_str);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Just how many kinds of broken are we expecting here? Is this lifted from
>>> the arm64 cpufeature framework, because it seems like absolute overkill
>>> for a simple PMU driver which in all reality is only ever going to
>>> wiggle a few flags in some data structure.
>>
>> Yes, this erratum framework is based on the arm_arch_timer code. Agree that
>> this is an overkill if it is just to support this hardware. I am not sure this can be
>> extended to add the IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED events in future(I haven't
>> looked into that now). If this is not that useful in the near future, I will remove
>> the
>> framework part and use the OEM info directly to set the flag. Please let me
>> know
>> your thoughts..
>
> Below is another take on this patch. Please let me know if this makes any sense..
>
> Thanks,
> Shameer
>
> ----8----
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_smmuv3_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_smmuv3_pmu.c
> index ef94b90..6f81b94 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_smmuv3_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_smmuv3_pmu.c
> @@ -96,6 +96,8 @@
>
> #define SMMU_PA_SHIFT 12
>
> +#define SMMU_PMU_OPT_EVCNTR_RDONLY (1 << 0)
> +
> static int cpuhp_state_num;
>
> struct smmu_pmu {
> @@ -111,10 +113,38 @@ struct smmu_pmu {
> struct device *dev;
> void __iomem *reg_base;
> void __iomem *reloc_base;
> + u32 options;
> u64 counter_present_mask;
> u64 counter_mask;
> };
>
> +struct erratum_acpi_oem_info {
> + char oem_id[ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE + 1];
> + char oem_table_id[ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID_SIZE + 1];
> + u32 oem_revision;
> + void (*enable)(struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu);
> +};
> +
> +void hisi_erratum_evcntr_rdonly(struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu)
> +{
> + smmu_pmu->options |= SMMU_PMU_OPT_EVCNTR_RDONLY;
> + dev_info(smmu_pmu->dev, "Enabling HiSilicon erratum 162001800\n");
> +}
> +
> +static struct erratum_acpi_oem_info acpi_oem_info[] = {
> + /*
> + * Note that trailing spaces are required to properly match
> + * the OEM table information.
> + */
> + {
> + .oem_id = "HISI ",
> + .oem_table_id = "HIP08 ",
> + .oem_revision = 0,
> + .enable = hisi_erratum_evcntr_rdonly,
> + },
> + { /* Sentinel indicating the end of the OEM array */ },
> +};
> +
> #define to_smmu_pmu(p) (container_of(p, struct smmu_pmu, pmu))
>
> #define SMMU_PMU_EVENT_ATTR_EXTRACTOR(_name, _config, _start, _end) \
> @@ -224,15 +254,20 @@ static void smmu_pmu_set_period(struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu,
> u32 idx = hwc->idx;
> u64 new;
>
> - /*
> - * We limit the max period to half the max counter value of the counter
> - * size, so that even in the case of extreme interrupt latency the
> - * counter will (hopefully) not wrap past its initial value.
> - */
> - new = smmu_pmu->counter_mask >> 1;
> + if (smmu_pmu->options & SMMU_PMU_OPT_EVCNTR_RDONLY) {
> + new = smmu_pmu_counter_get_value(smmu_pmu, idx);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * We limit the max period to half the max counter value
> + * of the counter size, so that even in the case of extreme
> + * interrupt latency the counter will (hopefully) not wrap
> + * past its initial value.
> + */
> + new = smmu_pmu->counter_mask >> 1;
> + smmu_pmu_counter_set_value(smmu_pmu, idx, new);
> + }
>
> local64_set(&hwc->prev_count, new);
> - smmu_pmu_counter_set_value(smmu_pmu, idx, new);
> }
>
> static void smmu_pmu_get_event_filter(struct perf_event *event, u32 *span,
> @@ -670,6 +705,28 @@ static void smmu_pmu_reset(struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu)
> smmu_pmu->reloc_base + SMMU_PMCG_OVSCLR0);
> }
>
> +static void smmu_pmu_check_acpi_workarounds(struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu)
> +{
> + static const struct erratum_acpi_oem_info empty_oem_info = {};
> + const struct erratum_acpi_oem_info *info = acpi_oem_info;
> + struct acpi_table_header *hdr;
> +
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_IORT, 0, &hdr))) {
> + dev_err(smmu_pmu->dev, "failed to get IORT\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Iterate over the ACPI OEM info array, looking for a match */
> + while (memcmp(info, &empty_oem_info, sizeof(*info))) {
> + if (!memcmp(info->oem_id, hdr->oem_id, ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE) &&
> + !memcmp(info->oem_table_id, hdr->oem_table_id, ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID_SIZE) &&
> + info->oem_revision == hdr->oem_revision)
> + info->enable(smmu_pmu);
> +
> + info++;
> + }
> +}
FWIW, this looks awfully like acpi_match_platform_list()...
However, I still think that any parsing of IORT fields belongs in
iort.c, not in every driver which might ever need to detect a quirk. For
starters, that code has iort_table to hand, full knowledge of all the
other identifiable components, and a already contains a bunch of
system-specific quirk detection which could potentially be shared.
[ side note: do you know if 1620 still has the same ITS quirk as 161x,
or is it just the SMMU's MSI output that didn't get updated? ]
Robin.
> +
> static int smmu_pmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct smmu_pmu *smmu_pmu;
> @@ -749,6 +806,8 @@ static int smmu_pmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + smmu_pmu_check_acpi_workarounds(smmu_pmu);
> +
> /* Pick one CPU to be the preferred one to use */
> smmu_pmu->on_cpu = get_cpu();
> WARN_ON(irq_set_affinity(smmu_pmu->irq, cpumask_of(smmu_pmu->on_cpu)));
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-26 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-16 12:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] arm64 SMMUv3 PMU driver with IORT support Shameer Kolothum
2018-10-16 12:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] acpi: arm64: add iort support for PMCG Shameer Kolothum
2018-10-16 12:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] perf: add arm64 smmuv3 pmu driver Shameer Kolothum
2018-10-17 21:53 ` kbuild test robot
2018-10-18 9:26 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2018-10-20 4:50 ` kbuild test robot
2018-10-16 12:49 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] perf/smmuv3: Add MSI irq support Shameer Kolothum
2018-10-17 3:35 ` kbuild test robot
2018-10-17 9:48 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2018-10-17 15:42 ` kbuild test robot
2018-10-16 12:49 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/smmuv3_pmu: Enable HiSilicon Erratum 162001800 quirk Shameer Kolothum
2018-10-18 11:43 ` Robin Murphy
2018-10-18 13:34 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2018-10-18 15:27 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2018-11-09 16:50 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2018-11-26 18:45 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2018-11-27 13:23 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
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=f8e469c3-7ec9-551e-d5bd-6f14b02a8f3f@arm.com \
--to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=neil.m.leeder@gmail.com \
--cc=pabba@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rruigrok@codeaurora.org \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=vkilari@codeaurora.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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®