linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a dedicated counter for guest PEBS

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:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 16:05:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
        hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        like.xu@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a
 dedicated counter for guest PEBS

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:12:42AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:

> > Suppose your KVM thing claims counter 0/2 (ICL/SKL) for some random PEBS
> > event, and then the host wants to use PREC_DIST.. Then one of them will
> > be screwed for no reason what so ever.
> > 
> 
> The multiplexing should be triggered.
> 
> For host, if both user A and user B requires PREC_DIST, the multiplexing
> should be triggered for them.
> Now, the user B is KVM. I don't think there is difference. The multiplexing
> should still be triggered. Why it is screwed?

Becuase if KVM isn't PREC_DIST we should be able to reschedule it to a
different counter.

> > How is that not destroying scheduling freedom? Any other situation we'd
> > have moved the !PREC_DIST PEBS event to another counter.
> > 
> 
> All counters are equivalent for them. It doesn't matter if we move it to
> another counter. There is no impact for the user.

But we cannot move it to another counter, because you're pinning it.

> In the new proposal, KVM user is treated the same as other host events with
> event constraint. The scheduler is free to choose whether or not to assign a
> counter for it.

That's what it does, I understand that. I'm saying that that is creating
artificial contention.


Why is this needed anyway? Can't we force the guest to flush and then
move it over to a new counter?