Re: [PATCH] perf: arm_spe: Add barrier before enabling profiling buffer
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>
Date: 2026-02-02 19:14:05
Also in:
linux-perf-users, lkml
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 06:57:11PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: [...]
quoted
quoted
I'm not sure I follow your logic as to why both ISBs are required, but I'd have thought that if perf_aux_output_begin() fails when called from arm_spe_perf_aux_output_begin() in the irqhandler, we need the ISB because we're going to clear pmblimitr_el1 to 0 and that surely has to be ordered before clearing pmbsr?I think the ISB after arm_spe_perf_aux_output_begin() in the irq handler is required for both the failure and success cases. For a normal maintenance interrupt, an ISB is inserted between writing PMBLIMITR_EL1 and PMBSR_EL1 to ensure that a valid limit write is visible before tracing restarts. This ensures that the following conditions are safely met: "While the Profiling Buffer is enabled, profiling is not stopped, and Discard mode is not enabled, all of the following must be true: The current write pointer must be at least one sample record below the write limit pointer. PMBPTR_EL1.PTR[63:56] must equal PMBLIMITR_EL1.LIMIT[63:56], regardless of the value of the applicable TBI bit."Hmm, so let's say we've executed the first ISB. At that point, the Profiling Buffer is disabled (PMBLIMITR_EL1.E = 0) and profiling is stopped (PMBSR_EL1.S = 1).
This is not true. PMBLIMITR_EL1.E is always 1 during interrupt handling.
If we *don't* have the second ISB then either PMBLIMITR_EL1 is written first or PMBSR_EL1 is written first. But the text you quoted will only come into effect once they've both happened, right? In which case, why does the order matter for the success case?
Yes, both PMBLIMITR_EL1.E == 1 and PMBSR_EL1.S == 0 must be true to enable tracing. However, the tricky part is that PMBLIMITR_EL1.E remains 1 throughout the sequence. Writing PMBLIMITR_EL1 effectively only sets the limit, while clearing PMBSR_EL1 is the distinct step that enables tracing. Thanks, Leo