From patchwork Thu Feb 29 12:28:47 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Kajol Jain X-Patchwork-Id: 1906306 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@legolas.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=iTXa8rjt; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org (client-ip=2404:9400:2:0:216:3eff:fee1:b9f1; helo=lists.ozlabs.org; envelope-from=linuxppc-dev-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org; receiver=patchwork.ozlabs.org) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2404:9400:2:0:216:3eff:fee1:b9f1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by legolas.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TlrBk1f9vz1yX7 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:29:34 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=iTXa8rjt; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TlrBk0JPxz2yst for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:29:34 +1100 (AEDT) X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=iTXa8rjt; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=kjain@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TlrBQ1zBdz3bTt for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:29:18 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 41TCRAvA017195; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:13 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=SZwUoagT6C0oEyNPca1WhuuGEkTkyTLUyg96Gk/I+xI=; b=iTXa8rjtHq4tjOsZa/VNLiIosoY+3q4WlW80/iWqksFN/9nnllX/fCLUAgN+KcHocbJI eVRG2y0Q/NiqSdoBG8sm3nSGcgyh81Ez4SSvg8z23ClkZ83VSRtoypaYoKdC0ftKKXnN gORYdPaHLdo9QeC55lCFckUmS4mHZBM8OquKxoUIlYie+qZ/5S8oH62NlxbOyoMQzlZ7 u5/yH5OhXVrEuXbHeI+VtYcgMsoyLGdULjvScPb7eKL+/l1x8wjpS7ac2/trUJVGIJH2 2Ia52jj/XJVTyQNtkiVJXsQLUUmsLHLDoanPun5+OI8obGzE0qKTQg4snlFNJOC3YiA0 xg== Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wjsxgr201-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:12 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 41TC1A6l008142; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:11 GMT Received: from smtprelay01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.227]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wfv9mn36h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:11 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.102]) by smtprelay01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 41TCT5B515925784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:07 GMT Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC6B2005A; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680182004D; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e8dccbcc-2adc-11b2-a85c-bc1f33b9b810.ibm.com.com (unknown [9.171.40.216]) by smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:29:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Kajol Jain To: mpe@ellerman.id.au Subject: [PATCH v2] powerpc/hv-gpci: Fix the H_GET_PERF_COUNTER_INFO hcall return value checks Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:58:47 +0530 Message-Id: <20240229122847.101162-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: o-RfEAHdqmQCUIDFm77lpvZvRmS0Ucp7 X-Proofpoint-GUID: o-RfEAHdqmQCUIDFm77lpvZvRmS0Ucp7 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-02-29_02,2024-02-29_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311290000 definitions=main-2402290095 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kjain@linux.ibm.com, akanksha@linux.ibm.com, maddy@linux.ibm.com, disgoel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Running event hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ in one of the system throws below error: ---Logs--- # perf list | grep hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=?/[Kernel PMU event] # perf stat -v -e hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ sleep 2 Using CPUID 00800200 Control descriptor is not initialized Warning: hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ event is not supported by the kernel. failed to read counter hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ Performance counter stats for 'system wide': hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ 2.000700771 seconds time elapsed The above error is because of the hcall failure as required permission "Enable Performance Information Collection" is not set. Based on current code, single_gpci_request function did not check the error type incase hcall fails and by default returns EINVAL. But we can have other reasons for hcall failures like H_AUTHORITY/H_PARAMETER with detail_rc as GEN_BUF_TOO_SMALL, for which we need to act accordingly. Fix this issue by adding new checks in the single_gpci_request and h_gpci_event_init functions. Result after fix patch changes: # perf stat -e hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ sleep 2 Error: No permission to enable hv_gpci/dispatch_timebase_by_processor_processor_time_in_timebase_cycles,phys_processor_idx=0/ event. Fixes: 220a0c609ad1 ("powerpc/perf: Add support for the hv gpci (get performance counter info) interface") Reported-by: Akanksha J N Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain --- Changelog: v1 -> v2 - To make sure the hcall failure with H_PARAMETER is only because of buffer size issue, add check for detail_rc value to be GEN_BUF_TOO_SMALL(0x1B) as suggested by Michael Ellerman. arch/powerpc/perf/hv-gpci.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-gpci.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-gpci.c index 27f18119fda1..89bfdc2ce8bc 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-gpci.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-gpci.c @@ -695,6 +695,20 @@ static unsigned long single_gpci_request(u32 req, u32 starting_index, ret = plpar_hcall_norets(H_GET_PERF_COUNTER_INFO, virt_to_phys(arg), HGPCI_REQ_BUFFER_SIZE); + + /* + * ret value as 'H_PARAMETER' with detail_rc as 'GEN_BUF_TOO_SMALL', + * specifies that the current buffer size cannot accommodate + * all the information and a partial buffer returned. + * Since in this function we are only accessing data for a given starting index, + * we don't need to accommodate whole data and can get required count by + * accessing first entry data. + * Hence hcall fails only incase the ret value is other than H_SUCCESS or + * H_PARAMETER with detail_rc value as GEN_BUF_TOO_SMALL(0x1B). + */ + if (ret == H_PARAMETER && be32_to_cpu(arg->params.detail_rc) == 0x1B) + ret = 0; + if (ret) { pr_devel("hcall failed: 0x%lx\n", ret); goto out; @@ -759,6 +773,7 @@ static int h_gpci_event_init(struct perf_event *event) { u64 count; u8 length; + unsigned long ret; /* Not our event */ if (event->attr.type != event->pmu->type) @@ -789,13 +804,23 @@ static int h_gpci_event_init(struct perf_event *event) } /* check if the request works... */ - if (single_gpci_request(event_get_request(event), + ret = single_gpci_request(event_get_request(event), event_get_starting_index(event), event_get_secondary_index(event), event_get_counter_info_version(event), event_get_offset(event), length, - &count)) { + &count); + + /* + * ret value as H_AUTHORITY implies that partition is not permitted to retrieve + * performance information, and required to set + * "Enable Performance Information Collection" option. + */ + if (ret == H_AUTHORITY) + return -EPERM; + + if (ret) { pr_devel("gpci hcall failed\n"); return -EINVAL; }