Re: [PATCH v3 09/20] perf arm-spe: Refactor address packet handling

From: Leo Yan
Date: Mon Oct 26 2020 - 02:31:40 EST

Next message: Xiaoming Ni: "ping //Re: [PATCH v2] arm:traps: Don't print stack or raw PC/LR hex values in backtraces"
Previous message: Xiaoming Ni: "[PATCH] arm:traps:Don't dump the memory in non-system reset scenarios"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:53:35PM +0100, André Przywara wrote:
> On 22/10/2020 15:58, Leo Yan wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
>
> > This patch is to refactor address packet handling, it defines macros for
> > address packet's header and payload, these macros are used by decoder
> > and the dump flow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.c | 29 ++++++++--------
> > .../arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c | 26 +++++++-------
> > .../arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h | 34 ++++++++++++-------
> > 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.c b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.c
> > index cc18a1e8c212..776b3e6628bb 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.c
> > @@ -24,36 +24,35 @@
> >
> > static u64 arm_spe_calc_ip(int index, u64 payload)
> > {
> > - u8 *addr = (u8 *)&payload;
> > - int ns, el;
> > + u64 ns, el;
> >
> > /* Instruction virtual address or Branch target address */
> > if (index == SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_INS ||
> > index == SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_BRANCH) {
> > - ns = addr[7] & SPE_ADDR_PKT_NS;
> > - el = (addr[7] & SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL_MASK) >> SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL_OFFSET;
> > + ns = SPE_ADDR_PKT_GET_NS(payload);
> > + el = SPE_ADDR_PKT_GET_EL(payload);
> > +
> > + /* Clean highest byte */
> > + payload = SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTES_0_6(payload);
> >
> > /* Fill highest byte for EL1 or EL2 (VHE) mode */
> > if (ns && (el == SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL1 || el == SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL2))
> > - addr[7] = 0xff;
> > - /* Clean highest byte for other cases */
> > - else
> > - addr[7] = 0x0;
> > + payload |= 0xffULL << SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_BYTE7_SHIFT;
> >
> > /* Data access virtual address */
> > } else if (index == SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_VIRT) {
> >
> > + /* Clean tags */
> > + payload = SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTES_0_6(payload);
> > +
> > /* Fill highest byte if bits [48..55] is 0xff */
>
> Do you know where this comes from? If yes, can you replace the comment
> with the reason, so that it says *why* and not *what* the code does?

I think I know where this comes from :)

Armv8 ARM defines the Address packet payload, the data virtual address
highest byte (byte7 for bits [63:56]) is assignment for TAG; if connect
with the kernel document Documentation/arm64/memory.rst, we can see the
prededined the "AArch64 Linux memory layout with 4KB pages + 4 levels",
though the payload's byte7 is for TAG, but we can check bits [48..55]
(byte6) and if it's 0xff, then we need fill the byte7 so can create a
valid virtual address for data accessing, this finally can allow perf
tool to find correct symbol for data structure.

Start End Size Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0000000000000000 0000ffffffffffff 256TB user
ffff000000000000 ffff7fffffffffff 128TB kernel logical memory map
ffff800000000000 ffff9fffffffffff 32TB kasan shadow region
ffffa00000000000 ffffa00007ffffff 128MB bpf jit region
ffffa00008000000 ffffa0000fffffff 128MB modules
ffffa00010000000 fffffdffbffeffff ~93TB vmalloc
fffffdffbfff0000 fffffdfffe5f8fff ~998MB [guard region]
fffffdfffe5f9000 fffffdfffe9fffff 4124KB fixed mappings
fffffdfffea00000 fffffdfffebfffff 2MB [guard region]
fffffdfffec00000 fffffdffffbfffff 16MB PCI I/O space
fffffdffffc00000 fffffdffffdfffff 2MB [guard region]
fffffdffffe00000 ffffffffffdfffff 2TB vmemmap
ffffffffffe00000 ffffffffffffffff 2MB [guard region]

But I find it misses to support the "AArch64 Linux memory layout with
64KB pages + 3 levels (52-bit with HW support)":

Start End Size Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0000000000000000 000fffffffffffff 4PB user
fff0000000000000 fff7ffffffffffff 2PB kernel logical memory map
fff8000000000000 fffd9fffffffffff 1440TB [gap]
fffda00000000000 ffff9fffffffffff 512TB kasan shadow region
ffffa00000000000 ffffa00007ffffff 128MB bpf jit region
ffffa00008000000 ffffa0000fffffff 128MB modules
ffffa00010000000 fffff81ffffeffff ~88TB vmalloc
fffff81fffff0000 fffffc1ffe58ffff ~3TB [guard region]
fffffc1ffe590000 fffffc1ffe9fffff 4544KB fixed mappings
fffffc1ffea00000 fffffc1ffebfffff 2MB [guard region]
fffffc1ffec00000 fffffc1fffbfffff 16MB PCI I/O space
fffffc1fffc00000 fffffc1fffdfffff 2MB [guard region]
fffffc1fffe00000 ffffffffffdfffff 3968GB vmemmap
ffffffffffe00000 ffffffffffffffff 2MB [guard region]

So if detect byte6 is "0xf0", "0xf8, "0xfd", we also need to fixup the
byte7 and fill 0xff to it.

If you think this is right way to process address packet, I will use a
separate to fix comment and support 64KB page fixup.

> > - if (addr[6] == 0xff)
> > - addr[7] = 0xff;
> > - /* Otherwise, cleanup tags */
> > - else
> > - addr[7] = 0x0;
> > + if (SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTE_6(payload) == 0xffULL)
> > + payload |= 0xffULL << SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_BYTE7_SHIFT;
> >
> > /* Data access physical address */
> > } else if (index == SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_PHYS) {
> > - /* Cleanup byte 7 */
> > - addr[7] = 0x0;
> > + /* Clean highest byte */
> > + payload = SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTES_0_6(payload);
> > } else {
> > pr_err("unsupported address packet index: 0x%x\n", index);
> > }
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> > index 550cd7648c73..156f98d6b8b2 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> > @@ -13,9 +13,6 @@
> >
> > #include "arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h"
> >
> > -#define NS_FLAG BIT(63)
> > -#define EL_FLAG (BIT(62) | BIT(61))
> > -
> > #if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
> > #define le16_to_cpu bswap_16
> > #define le32_to_cpu bswap_32
> > @@ -167,10 +164,11 @@ static int arm_spe_get_addr(const unsigned char *buf, size_t len,
> > const unsigned char ext_hdr, struct arm_spe_pkt *packet)
> > {
> > packet->type = ARM_SPE_ADDRESS;
> > +
> > if (ext_hdr)
> > - packet->index = ((buf[0] & 0x3) << 3) | (buf[1] & 0x7);
> > + packet->index = SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_EXTENDED_INDEX(buf[0], buf[1]);
> > else
> > - packet->index = buf[0] & 0x7;
> > + packet->index = SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_SHORT_INDEX(buf[0]);
> >
> > return arm_spe_get_payload(buf, len, ext_hdr, packet);
> > }
> > @@ -274,20 +272,20 @@ static int arm_spe_pkt_desc_addr(const struct arm_spe_pkt *packet,
> > u64 payload = packet->payload;
> >
> > switch (idx) {
> > - case 0:
> > - case 1:
> > - ns = !!(packet->payload & NS_FLAG);
> > - el = (packet->payload & EL_FLAG) >> 61;
> > - payload &= ~(0xffULL << 56);
> > + case SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_INS:
> > + case SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_BRANCH:
> > + ns = !!SPE_ADDR_PKT_GET_NS(payload);
> > + el = SPE_ADDR_PKT_GET_EL(payload);
> > + payload = SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTES_0_6(payload);
> > return arm_spe_pkt_snprintf(&buf, &buf_len,
> > "%s 0x%llx el%d ns=%d",
> > (idx == 1) ? "TGT" : "PC", payload, el, ns);
> > - case 2:
> > + case SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_VIRT:
> > return arm_spe_pkt_snprintf(&buf, &buf_len,
> > "VA 0x%llx", payload);
> > - case 3:
> > - ns = !!(packet->payload & NS_FLAG);
> > - payload &= ~(0xffULL << 56);
> > + case SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_PHYS:
> > + ns = !!SPE_ADDR_PKT_GET_NS(payload);
> > + payload = SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTES_0_6(payload);
> > return arm_spe_pkt_snprintf(&buf, &buf_len,
> > "PA 0x%llx ns=%d", payload, ns);
> > default:
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h
> > index 68552ff8a8f7..4111550d2bde 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h
> > @@ -59,19 +59,27 @@ struct arm_spe_pkt {
> >
> > #define SPE_HEADER_SZ(val) ((val & GENMASK_ULL(5, 4)) >> 4)
> >
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_INS (0x0)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_BRANCH (0x1)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_VIRT (0x2)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_PHYS (0x3)
> > -
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_NS BIT(7)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_CH BIT(6)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL_OFFSET (5)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL_MASK (0x3 << SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL_OFFSET)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL0 (0)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL1 (1)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL2 (2)
> > -#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_EL3 (3)
> > +/* Address packet header */
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_SHORT_INDEX(h) ((h) & GENMASK_ULL(2, 0))
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_EXTENDED_INDEX(h0, h1) (((h0) & GENMASK_ULL(1, 0)) << 3 | \
> > + SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_SHORT_INDEX(h1))
>
> Did you consider sharing those two with the identical definition for the
> extended counter packet? This extended packet seems more like a generic
> concept, regardless of the packet type.

TBH, I have considered for this :) An exception is the Context packet,
it uses different format for index (bits [1:0]).

I think I can consolidate the index for Address packet and conter
packet for sharing definitions.

#define SPE_PKT_HDR_SHORT_INDEX(h) ((h) & GENMASK_ULL(2, 0))
#define SPE_PKT_HDR_EXTENDED_INDEX(h0, h1) (((h0) & GENMASK_ULL(1, 0)) << 3 | \
SPE_PKT_HDR_SHORT_INDEX(h1))

> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_INS 0x0
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_BRANCH 0x1
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_VIRT 0x2
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_HDR_INDEX_DATA_PHYS 0x3
> > +
> > +/* Address packet payload */
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_BYTE7_SHIFT 56
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTES_0_6(v) ((v) & GENMASK_ULL(55, 0))
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_ADDR_GET_BYTE_6(v) (((v) & GENMASK_ULL(55, 48)) >> 48)
> > +
> > +#define SPE_ADDR_PKT_GET_NS(v) (((v) & BIT(63)) >> 63)
>
> You need BIT_ULL(63) here to make this work on 32-bit systems.

Will do. Thanks!

Leo

Next message: Xiaoming Ni: "ping //Re: [PATCH v2] arm:traps: Don't print stack or raw PC/LR hex values in backtraces"
Previous message: Xiaoming Ni: "[PATCH] arm:traps:Don't dump the memory in non-system reset scenarios"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]