linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: Reduce counter period change overhead and delay the effective time

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]

Message-ID: <cfc35223-2a8c-e995-ef2c-a85b44b5fea7@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:00:13 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Eric Hankland <ehankland@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: Reduce counter period change overhead and delay
 the effective time

On 2020/3/17 15:53, Like Xu wrote:
> The cost of perf_event_period() is unstable, and when the guest samples
> multiple events, the overhead increases dramatically (5378 ns on E5-2699).
> 
> For a non-running counter, the effective time of the new period is when
> its corresponding enable bit is enabled. Calling perf_event_period()
> in advance is superfluous. For a running counter, it's safe to delay the
> effective time until the KVM_REQ_PMU event is handled. If there are
> multiple perf_event_period() calls before handling KVM_REQ_PMU,
> it helps to reduce the total cost.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c           | 11 -----------
>   arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h           | 11 +++++++++++
>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 10 ++++------
>   3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> index d1f8ca57d354..527a8bb85080 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> @@ -437,17 +437,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu);
>   }
>   
> -static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> -{
> -	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc);
> -
> -	if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc))
> -		return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl,
> -			pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3;
> -
> -	return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE;
> -}
> -
>   /* Release perf_events for vPMCs that have been unused for a full time slice.  */
>   void kvm_pmu_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
> index d7da2b9e0755..cd112e825d2c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
> @@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ static inline u64 get_sample_period(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 counter_value)
>   	return sample_period;
>   }
>   
> +static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc);
> +
> +	if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc))
> +		return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl,
> +			pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3;
> +
> +	return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE;
> +}
> +
>   void reprogram_gp_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 eventsel);
>   void reprogram_fixed_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u8 ctrl, int fixed_idx);
>   void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> index 7c857737b438..4e689273eb05 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> @@ -263,15 +263,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>   			if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>   				data = (s64)(s32)data;
>   			pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc);
> -			if (pmc->perf_event)
> -				perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event,
> -						  get_sample_period(pmc, data));
> +			if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) {

Oops, the "{" is a shameful mistake.

> +				kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, pmc->vcpu);
>   			return 0;
>   		} else if ((pmc = get_fixed_pmc(pmu, msr))) {
>   			pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc);
> -			if (pmc->perf_event)
> -				perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event,
> -						  get_sample_period(pmc, data));
> +			if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) {

> +				kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, pmc->vcpu);
>   			return 0;
>   		} else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) {
>   			if (data == pmc->eventsel)
>