linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] x86: perf/core: use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ef9kslge.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:15:13 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        robin.murphy@....com, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] x86: perf/core: use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE for exclude incapable PMUs

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:27PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
>> For drivers that do not support context exclusion let's advertise the
>> PERF_PMU_CAP_NOEXCLUDE capability. This ensures that perf will
>> prevent us from handling events where any exclusion flags are set.
>> Let's also remove the now unnecessary check for exclusion flags.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/events/amd/ibs.c          | 13 +------------
>>  arch/x86/events/amd/power.c        | 10 ++--------
>>  arch/x86/events/intel/cstate.c     | 12 +++---------
>>  arch/x86/events/intel/rapl.c       |  9 ++-------
>>  arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c |  9 ++-------
>>  arch/x86/events/msr.c              | 10 ++--------
>>  6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> You (correctly) don't add CAP_NO_EXCLUDE to the main x86 pmu code, but
> then you also don't check if it handles all the various exclude options
> correctly/consistently.
>
> Now; I must admit that that is a bit of a maze, but I think we can at
> least add exclude_idle and exclude_hv fails in there, nothing uses those
> afaict.
>
> On the various exclude options; they are as follows (IIUC):
>
>   - exclude_guest: we're a HV/host-kernel and we don't want the counter
>                    to run when we run a guest context.
>
>   - exclude_host: we're a HV/host-kernel and we don't want the counter
>                   to run when we run in host context.
>
>   - exclude_hv: we're a guest and don't want the counter to run in HV
>                 context.
>
> Now, KVM always implies exclude_hv afaict (for guests)

On Power it mostly does.

There's some host code that can run in real mode (MMU off) and therefore
doesn't do a full context switch out of the guest (including the PMU),
so that's host code that is running while the guest PMCs are still
counting.

cheers