Re: [PATCH V11 05/10] arm64/perf: Add branch stack support in ARMV8 PMU
From: Suzuki K Poulose
Date: Fri Jun 09 2023 - 06:03:33 EST
On 09/06/2023 05:00, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 6/8/23 15:43, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 06/06/2023 11:34, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 6/5/23 17:35, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:34:23AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This enables support for branch stack sampling event in ARMV8 PMU, checking
has_branch_stack() on the event inside 'struct arm_pmu' callbacks. Although
these branch stack helpers armv8pmu_branch_XXXXX() are just dummy functions
for now. While here, this also defines arm_pmu's sched_task() callback with
armv8pmu_sched_task(), which resets the branch record buffer on a sched_in.
This generally looks good, but I have a few comments below.
[...]
+static inline bool armv8pmu_branch_valid(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!has_branch_stack(event));
+ return false;
+}
IIUC this is for validating the attr, so could we please name this
armv8pmu_branch_attr_valid() ?
Sure, will change the name and updated call sites.
[...]
+static int branch_records_alloc(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
+{
+ struct pmu_hw_events *events;
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
Shouldn't this be supported_pmus ? i.e.
for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {
+ events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
+ events->branches = kzalloc(sizeof(struct branch_records), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!events->branches)
+ return -ENOMEM;
Do we need to free the allocated branches already ?
This gets fixed in the next patch via per-cpu allocation. I will
move and fold the code block in here. Updated function will look
like the following.
static int branch_records_alloc(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
{
struct branch_records __percpu *records;
int cpu;
records = alloc_percpu_gfp(struct branch_records, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!records)
return -ENOMEM;
/*
* FIXME: Memory allocated via records gets completely
* consumed here, never required to be freed up later. Hence
* losing access to on stack 'records' is acceptable.
* Otherwise this alloc handle has to be saved some where.
*/
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
struct pmu_hw_events *events_cpu;
struct branch_records *records_cpu;
events_cpu = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
records_cpu = per_cpu_ptr(records, cpu);
events_cpu->branches = records_cpu;
}
return 0;
}
Regarding the cpumask argument in for_each_cpu().
- hw_events is a __percpu pointer in struct arm_pmu
- pmu->hw_events = alloc_percpu_gfp(struct pmu_hw_events, GFP_KERNEL)
- 'records' above is being allocated via alloc_percpu_gfp()
- records = alloc_percpu_gfp(struct branch_records, GFP_KERNEL)
If 'armpmu->supported_cpus' mask gets used instead of possible cpu mask,
would not there be some dangling per-cpu branch_record allocated areas,
that remain unsigned ? Assigning all of them back into hw_events should
be harmless.
Thats because you are using alloc_percpu for records ? With the current
proposed code, if there are two different arm_pmus on the system, you
would end up wasting 1xper_cpu branch_records ? And if there are 3,
2xper_cpu gets wasted ?
+ }
May be:
int ret = 0;
for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {
events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
events->branches = kzalloc(sizeof(struct branch_records), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!events->branches) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
break;
}
}
if (!ret)
return 0;
for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {
events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
if (!events->branches)
break;
kfree(events->branches);
}
return ret;
+ return 0;
This leaks memory if any allocation fails, and the next patch replaces this
code entirely.
Okay.
Please add this once in a working state. Either use the percpu allocation
trick in the next patch from the start, or have this kzalloc() with a
corresponding kfree() in an error path.
I will change branch_records_alloc() as suggested in the next patch's thread
and fold those changes here in this patch.
}
static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
@@ -1145,12 +1162,24 @@ static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
};
int ret;
+ ret = armv8pmu_private_alloc(cpu_pmu);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus,
__armv8pmu_probe_pmu,
&probe, 1);
if (ret)
return ret;
+ if (arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu)) {
+ ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ } else {
+ armv8pmu_private_free(cpu_pmu);
+ }
I see from the next patch that "private" is four ints, so please just add that
to struct arm_pmu under an ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_BRBE. That'll simplify this, and
if we end up needing more space in future we can consider factoring it out.
struct arm_pmu {
........................................
/* Implementation specific attributes */
void *private;
}
private pointer here creates an abstraction for given pmu implementation
to hide attribute details without making it known to core arm pmu layer.
Although adding ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_BRBE solves the problem as mentioned
above, it does break that abstraction. Currently arm_pmu layer is aware
about 'branch records' but not about BRBE in particular which the driver
adds later on. I suggest we should not break that abstraction.
Instead a global 'static struct brbe_hw_attr' in drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c
can be initialized into arm_pmu->private during armv8pmu_branch_probe(),
which will also solve the allocation-free problem. Also similar helpers
armv8pmu_task_ctx_alloc()/free() could be defined to manage task context
cache i.e arm_pmu->pmu.task_ctx_cache independently.
But now armv8pmu_task_ctx_alloc() can be called after pmu probe confirms
to have arm_pmu->has_branch_stack.
+
return probe.present ? 0 : -ENODEV;
}
It also seems odd to ceck probe.present *after* checking
arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported().
I will reorganize as suggested below.
With the allocation removed I think this can be written more clearly as:
| static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
| {
| struct armv8pmu_probe_info probe = {
| .pmu = cpu_pmu,
| .present = false,
| };
| int ret;
|
| ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus,
| __armv8pmu_probe_pmu,
| &probe, 1);
| if (ret)
| return ret; > |
| if (!probe.present)
| return -ENODEV;
|
| if (arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu))
| ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu);
|
| return ret;
| }
Could we not simplify this as below and keep the abstraction, since we
already have it ?
No, there is an allocation dependency before the smp call context.
Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Could we not read whatever we need to know
about the brbe in armv8pmu_probe_info and process it at the caller here?
And then do the the private_alloc etc as we need ?
Suzuki