Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: add support for the AMU extension v1

[Valentin Schneider]

On 23/01/2020 18:32, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
[...]
> and later we can use information in
> AMCGCR_EL0 to get the number of architected counters (n) and
> AMEVTYPER0<n>_EL0 to find out the type. The same logic would apply to
> the auxiliary counters.
> 

Good, I think that's all we'll really need. I've not gone through the whole
series (yet!) so I might've missed AMCGCR being used.

>>> @@ -1150,6 +1152,59 @@ static bool has_hw_dbm(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap,
>>>  
>>>  #endif
>>>  
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_AMU_EXTN
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * This per cpu variable only signals that the CPU implementation supports
>>> + * the Activity Monitors Unit (AMU) but does not provide information
>>> + * regarding all the events that it supports.
>>> + * When this amu_feat per CPU variable is true, the user of this feature
>>> + * can only rely on the presence of the 4 fixed counters. But this does
>>> + * not guarantee that the counters are enabled or access to these counters
>>> + * is provided by code executed at higher exception levels.
>>> + *
>>> + * Also, to ensure the safe use of this per_cpu variable, the following
>>> + * accessor is defined to allow a read of amu_feat for the current cpu only
>>> + * from the current cpu.
>>> + *  - cpu_has_amu_feat()
>>> + */
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u8, amu_feat);
>>> +
>>
>> Why not bool?
>>
> 
> I've changed it from bool after a sparse warning about expression using
> sizeof(bool) and found this is due to sizeof(bool) being compiler
> dependent. It does not change anything but I thought it might be a good
> idea to define it as 8-bit unsigned and rely on fixed size.
> 

I believe conveying the intent (a truth value) is more important than the
underlying storage size in this case. It mostly matters when dealing with
aggregates, but here it's just a free-standing variable.

We already have a few per-CPU boolean variables in arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
and the commits aren't even a year old, so I'd go for ignoring sparse this
time around.

> Thank you for the review,
> Ionela.
> 
>>> +inline bool cpu_has_amu_feat(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	return !!this_cpu_read(amu_feat);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void cpu_amu_enable(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (has_cpuid_feature(cap, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)) {
>>> +		pr_info("detected CPU%d: Activity Monitors Unit (AMU)\n",
>>> +			smp_processor_id());
>>> +		this_cpu_write(amu_feat, 1);
>>> +	}
>>> +}