Re: [PATCH 02/19] perf/hisilicon: Fix group validation

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 03:35:48PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 2025-08-26 12:15 pm, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 06:00:54PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:

> > > > diff --git a/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c
> > > > index c5394d007b61..3b0b2f7197d0 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c
> > > > @@ -338,21 +338,16 @@ static bool hisi_pcie_pmu_validate_event_group(struct perf_event *event)
> > > >   	int counters = 1;
> > > >   	int num;
> > > > -	event_group[0] = leader;
> > > > -	if (!is_software_event(leader)) {
> > > > -		if (leader->pmu != event->pmu)
> > > > -			return false;
> > > > +	if (leader == event)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > > -		if (leader != event && !hisi_pcie_pmu_cmp_event(leader, event))
> > > > -			event_group[counters++] = event;
> > > > -	}
> > > > +	event_group[0] = event;
> > > > +	if (leader->pmu == event->pmu && !hisi_pcie_pmu_cmp_event(leader, event))
> > > > +		event_group[counters++] = leader;
> > > 
> > > Looking at this, the existing logic to share counters (which
> > > hisi_pcie_pmu_cmp_event() is trying to permit) looks to be bogus, given
> > > that the start/stop callbacks will reprogram the HW counters (and hence
> > > can fight with one another).

> > It does seem somewhat nonsensical to have multiple copies of the same event
> > in the same group, but I imagine it could happen with some sort of scripted
> > combination of metrics, and supporting it at this level saves needing
> > explicit deduplication further up. So even though my initial instinct was to
> > rip it out too, in the end I concluded that that doesn't seem justified.
> 
> As above, I think it's clearly bogus. I don't think we should have
> merged it as-is and it's not something I'd like to see others copy.
> Other PMUs don't do this sort of event deduplication, and in general it
> should be up to the user or userspace software to do that rather than
> doing that badly in the kernel.
> 
> Given it was implemented with no rationale I think we should rip it out.
> If that breaks someone's scripting, then we can consider implementing
> something that actually works.

Having dug some more, I see that this was intended to handle the way
the hardware shares a single config register between pairs of counter
and counter_ext registers, with the idea being that two related events
could be allocated into the same counter pair (but would only occupy a
single counter each).

I still think the code is wrong, but it is more complex than I made it
out to be, and you're right that we should leave it as-is for now. I can
follow up after we've got this series in.

Mark.