On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:13:40AM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:56:50PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:14:06PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > >> >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running > >> >> in HYP) > >> >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for > >> >> exclude_kernel > >> >> and exclude_hv. This change is breaking some applications (observed > >> >> with hhvm) > >> >> when ran on VHE enabled platforms. > >> >> > >> >> Adding fix to consider only exclude_kernel attribute when kernel is > >> >> running in HYP. Also adding sysfs file to notify the bhehaviour > >> >> of attribute exclude_hv. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulka...@cavium.com> > >> >> --- > >> >> > >> >> Changelog: > >> >> > >> >> V2: > >> >> - Changes as per Will Deacon's suggestion. > >> >> > >> >> V1: Initial patch > >> >> > >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > >> >> include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 1 + > >> >> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> @@ -871,14 +890,13 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct > >> >> hw_perf_event *event, > >> >> > >> >> if (attr->exclude_idle) > >> >> return -EPERM; > >> >> - if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && > >> >> - attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > >> >> - return -EINVAL; > >> >> + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_kernel) > >> >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; > >> >> if (attr->exclude_user) > >> >> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0; > >> >> if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel) > >> >> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; > >> >> - if (!attr->exclude_hv) > >> >> + if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && !attr->exclude_hv) > >> >> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; > >> > > >> > This isn't quite what Will suggested. > >> > > >> > The idea was that userspace would read sysfs, then use that to determine > >> > the correct exclusion parameters [1,2]. This logic was not expected to > >> > change; it correctly validates whether we can provide what the user > >> > requests. > >> > >> OK, if you are ok with sysfs part, i can send next version with that > >> change only?. > > > > I think the sysfs part is still a little dodgy, since you still expose the > > "exclude_hv" file with a value of 0 when not running at EL2, which would > > imply that exclude_hv is forced to zero. I don't think that's correct. > > okay, i can make exclude_hv visible only when kernel booted in EL2. > is it ok to have empty directory "attr" when kernel booted to EL1? > attr can be place holder for any other miscellaneous attributes, that > can be added in future.
Sounds good to me, although I'll seek comment from the other perf folks before merging anything with ABI implications. Will