linux-kernel - Re: perf, x86: only do lbr init if bts is available

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CABPqkBT7dKa3P2hk=_pismGdPHuseWMbCKhUzz1sQNDemb133A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 May 2012 18:35:23 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf, x86: only do lbr init if bts is available

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:19 PM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> KVM recently added support for a version 2 PMU. When passing -cpu host as
> the CPU model for the guest we get an abnormal configuration from perf's
> perspective in that the guest identifies the processor as a Westmere or
> Nehalem (etc):
>
> [    0.013998] Performance Events: Westmere events, Intel PMU driver.
>
>
> but yet the processor does not have the debug store mechanisms
> (X86_FEATURE_DTES64 is not set) meaning there is no PEBS or BTS.
>
> Right now the LBR init functions are run based on processor model which
> leads to attempts to write to LBR MSRs generating messages like:
>
> [ 1170.125605] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled rdmsr: 0x345
> [ 1170.135354] kvm_set_msr_common: 54 callbacks suppressed
> [ 1170.135612] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x680 data 0
> [ 1170.135900] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x6c0 data 0
> [ 1170.136163] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x681 data 0
> [ 1170.136437] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x6c1 data 0
> [ 1170.136703] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x682 data 0
> [ 1170.136968] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x6c2 data 0
> [ 1170.137227] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x683 data 0
> [ 1170.137502] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x6c3 data 0
> [ 1170.137797] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x684 data 0
> [ 1170.138061] kvm: 6873: cpu0 unhandled wrmsr: 0x6c4 data 0
>
>
> MSR 0x345 is MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES; the 0x6XX MSRs are LBR from/to.
>
> Question: is something like this acceptable/make sense -- to only setup lbr
> values if the BTS is detected?
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> index 166546e..7ba4afa 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> @@ -1783,7 +1784,8 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>        memcpy(hw_cache_extra_regs, nehalem_hw_cache_extra_regs,
>               sizeof(hw_cache_extra_regs));
>
> -       intel_pmu_lbr_init_nhm();
> +       if (x86_pmu.bts)
> +           intel_pmu_lbr_init_nhm();
>
Well, no. There is no connection between BTS and LBR and you're creating one.

Where is the wrmsr coming from? What we need to do is ensure that LBR is not
touched if we don't actually use it.

>        x86_pmu.event_constraints = intel_nehalem_event_constraints;
>        x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_event_constraints;
>
> David
--
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/