Re: [PATCH V13 - RESEND 02/10] arm64/perf: Add BRBE registers and fields

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 7/31/23 14:36, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:21AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/23 22:22, James Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/07/2023 17:20, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:47PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>> This adds BRBE related register definitions and various other related field
>>>>> macros there in. These will be used subsequently in a BRBE driver which is
>>>>> being added later on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Tested-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  arch/arm64/tools/sysreg         | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  2 files changed, 261 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> index b481935e9314..f95e30c13c8b 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
>>>>> @@ -163,6 +163,109 @@
>>>>>  #define SYS_DBGDTRTX_EL0		sys_reg(2, 3, 0, 5, 0)
>>>>>  #define SYS_DBGVCR32_EL2		sys_reg(2, 4, 0, 7, 0)
>>>>>  
>>>>> +#define __SYS_BRBINFO(n)		sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10)) >> 2 + 0))
>>>>> +#define __SYS_BRBSRC(n)			sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10)) >> 2 + 1))
>>>>> +#define __SYS_BRBTGT(n)			sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10)) >> 2 + 2))
>>>>
>>>> It's that time on a Friday but... aren't these macros busted? I think you
>>>> need brackets before adding the offset, otherwise wouldn't, for example,
>>>> target registers 0-15 all access info register 0 and __SYS_BRBTGT(16) would
>>>> then start accessing source register 0?
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that the compiler doesn't warn about this, but even more
>>>> surprised that you managed to test this.
>>>>
>>>> Please tell me I'm wrong!
>>>>
>>>> Will
>>>
>>> No I think you are right, it is wrong. Luckily there is already an
>>> extraneous bracket so you you can fix it by moving one a place down:
>>>
>>>   sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 2))
>>>
>>> It's interesting because the test [1] is doing quite a bit and looking
>>> at the branch info, and that src and targets match up to function names.
>>> I also manually looked at the branch buffers and didn't see anything
>>> obviously wrong like things that looked like branch infos in the source
>>> or target fields. Will have to take another look to see if it would be
>>> possible for the test to catch this.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-jc/-/commit/3a7ddce70c2daadb63fcc511de0a89055ca48b32
>>
>> ((((n) & 0x10)) >> 2 + 2) ---> ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 2)
>>
>> The additional brackets are useful in explicitly telling the compiler but
>> what it the compiler is just doing the right thing implicitly i.e computing
>> the shifting operation before doing the offset addition.
> 
> No; that is not correct. In c, '+' has higher precedence than '>>'.
> 
> For 'a >> b + c' the compiler *must* treat that as 'a >> (b + c)', and not as
> '(a >> b) + c'
> 
> That's trivial to test:
> 
> | [mark@gravadlaks:~]% cat shiftadd.c 
> | #include <stdio.h>
> | 
> | unsigned long logshiftadd(unsigned long a,
> |                           unsigned long b,
> |                           unsigned long c)
> | {
> |         printf("%ld >> %ld + %ld is %ld\n",
> |                a, b, c, a >> b + c);
> | }
> | 
> | int main(int argc, char *argv)
> | {
> |         logshiftadd(0, 0, 0);
> |         logshiftadd(0, 0, 1);
> |         logshiftadd(0, 0, 2);
> |         printf("\n");
> |         logshiftadd(1024, 0, 0);
> |         logshiftadd(1024, 0, 1);
> |         logshiftadd(1024, 0, 2);
> |         printf("\n");
> |         logshiftadd(1024, 2, 0);
> |         logshiftadd(1024, 2, 1);
> |         logshiftadd(1024, 2, 2);
> | 
> |         return 0;
> | }
> | [mark@gravadlaks:~]% gcc shiftadd.c -o shiftadd
> | [mark@gravadlaks:~]% ./shiftadd 
> | 0 >> 0 + 0 is 0
> | 0 >> 0 + 1 is 0
> | 0 >> 0 + 2 is 0
> | 
> | 1024 >> 0 + 0 is 1024
> | 1024 >> 0 + 1 is 512
> | 1024 >> 0 + 2 is 256
> | 
> | 1024 >> 2 + 0 is 256
> | 1024 >> 2 + 1 is 128
> | 1024 >> 2 + 2 is 64

Understood.

> 
>> During testing, all > those captured branch records looked alright.
> 
> I think we clearly need better testing here
I am still thinking - how could this might have been missed. Could it be
possible that these wrongly computed higher indices were getting folded
back/rolled over into the same legal range indices for a given bank. If
they did, branch record processing would have still captured almost all
of them, may be in an incorrect order. Branch order does matter for the
stitched mechanism.