linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] ara virt interface of perf to support kvm guest os statistics collection in guest os

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:13:44 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, zhiteng.huang@...el.com,
	tim.c.chen@...el.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] ara virt interface of perf to support kvm guest
 os statistics collection in guest os

On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 09:58 +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 06/22/10 09:47, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 09:14 +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> On 06/22/10 03:49, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 14:45 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>> So I think above discussion is around how to expose PMU hardware to guest os. I will
> >>> also check this method after the para virt interface is done.
> >>
> >> You should be able to expose the counters as read-only to the guest. KVM
> >> allows you to specify whether or not a guest has read, write or
> >> read/write access. If you allowed read access of the counters that would
> >> safe a fair bit of hyper calls.
> > Thanks. KVM is good in register access permission configuration. But things are not so
> > simple like that if we consider real running environment. Host kernel might schedule
> > guest os vcpu thread to other cpus, or other non-kvm processes might preempt the vcpu
> > thread on this cpu.
> > 
> > To support such capability you said, we have to implement the direct exposition of PMU
> > hardware to guest os eventually.
> 
> If the guest is rescheduled to another CPU, or you get a preemption, you
> have a VMEXIT. The vcpu thread will not migrate while it is running, so
> you can handle it while the the VMEXIT is being serviced.
> 
> Exposing the counters read-only would save a lot of overhead for sure.
> >> Question is if it is safe to drop overflow support?
> > Not safe. One of PMU hardware design objectives is to use interrupt or NMI to notify
> > software when event counter overflows. Without overflow support, software need poll
> > the PMU registers looply. That is not good and consumes more cpu resources.
> 
> Here is an idea, how about having the overflow NMI in the host trigger a
> flag that causes the PMU register read to trap and get special handling?
> That way you could propagate the overflow back down to the guest.
That doesn't resolve the issue that guest os software has to poll register.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/