Re: [PATCH] perf: arm_pmuv3: Zero initialize hw_id branch stack field

James Clark <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-perf-users,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>

On 07/08/2026 11:44, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 07/08/26 2:44 PM, James Clark wrote:
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX is supported by BRBE so hw_id is passed to
>> userspace, but it's never set by the BRBE driver. Zero initialize it as
>> it should be according to the docs:
>>
>>     * For the architectures whose raw branch records are
>>     * already stored in age order, the hw_idx should be 0.
> 
> The in code documentation while defining perf_branch_stack.
> Probably a good idea to specify the same above.
> 
>   * For the architectures whose raw branch records are
>   * already stored in age order, the hw_idx should be 0.
>   */
> struct perf_branch_stack {
> 	u64				nr;
> 	u64				hw_idx;
> 	struct perf_branch_entry	entries[];
> };
> 

I found it easily enough. I wouldn't want to put the same comment in two 
places and risk one of them going stale. And if I take it away from one 
place and move it to the struct then it's just missing from somewhere 
else instead. So I think I'd rather leave this one.

>>
>> It's probably too risky to remove PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX from BRBE
>> now in case anyone is setting it and reading the value, but zero
>> initializing the whole struct also protects against the same issue with
>> new fields that are added in the future.
> 
> Agreed. Because PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX is supported in BRBE,
> hw_idx pushed to the userspace should be zero if HW never updates.
> This is definitely better than dropping PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> flag all together to avoid breaking current users (if any).
>>
>> Fixes: 58074a0fce66 ("perf: arm_pmuv3: Add support for the Branch Record Buffer Extension (BRBE)")
>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <[email protected]>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <[email protected]>
> 

Thanks

>> ---
>> Very small fix spotted by Sashiko. It was probably always zero during
>> testing or never looked at.
>> ---
>>   drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
>> index 8014ff766cff..b9a8592bf112 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
>> @@ -1361,7 +1361,7 @@ static int branch_records_alloc(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>>   		struct pmu_hw_events *events_cpu;
>>   
>>   		events_cpu = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
>> -		events_cpu->branch_stack = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		events_cpu->branch_stack = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>>   		if (!events_cpu->branch_stack)
>>   			return -ENOMEM;
>>   	}
>>
>> ---
>> base-commit: f9a2394a23482bfd330911e9c8295b71724feacd
>> change-id: 20260807-james-brbe-init-hw-idx-53dec54fe266
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> James Clark <[email protected]>
>>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.