Message-ID: <9f6bef69-08bc-2daa-6f12-764e9de7d418@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 16:17:27 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     like.xu@...el.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Check guest LBR availability in
 case host reclaims them

Hi Peter,

On 2020/5/20 10:01, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2020/5/19 22:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:10:58PM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
>>> On 2020/5/19 19:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:30:53PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
>>>>> index ea4faae56473..db185dca903d 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
>>>>> @@ -646,6 +646,43 @@ static void intel_pmu_lbr_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>>> *vcpu)
>>>>>            intel_pmu_free_lbr_event(vcpu);
>>>>>    }
>>>>> +static bool intel_pmu_lbr_is_availabile(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!pmu->lbr_event)
>>>>> +        return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (event_is_oncpu(pmu->lbr_event)) {
>>>>> +        intel_pmu_intercept_lbr_msrs(vcpu, false);
>>>>> +    } else {
>>>>> +        intel_pmu_intercept_lbr_msrs(vcpu, true);
>>>>> +        return false;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    return true;
>>>>> +}
>>>> This is unreadable gunk, what?
>>> Abstractly, it is saying "KVM would passthrough the LBR satck MSRs if
>>> event_is_oncpu() is true, otherwise cancel the passthrough state if any."
>>>
>>> I'm using 'event->oncpu != -1' to represent the guest LBR event
>>> is scheduled on rather than 'event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ERROR'.
>>>
>>> For intel_pmu_intercept_lbr_msrs(), false means to passthrough the LBR 
>>> stack
>>> MSRs to the vCPU, and true means to cancel the passthrough state and make
>>> LBR MSR accesses trapped by the KVM.
>> To me it seems very weird to change state in a function that is supposed
>> to just query state.
>>
>> 'is_available' seems to suggest a simple: return 'lbr_event->state ==
>> PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE' or something.
> This clarification led me to reconsider the use of a more readable name here.
> 
> Do you accept the check usage of "event->oncpu != -1" instead of
> 'event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ERROR' before KVM do passthrough ?
>>
>>>>> +static void intel_pmu_availability_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (lbr_is_enabled(vcpu) && !intel_pmu_lbr_is_availabile(vcpu) &&
>>>>> +        (vmcs_read64(GUEST_IA32_DEBUGCTL) & DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR))
>>>>> +        pr_warn_ratelimited("kvm: vcpu-%d: LBR is temporarily 
>>>>> unavailable.\n",
>>>>> +            vcpu->vcpu_id);
>>>> More unreadable nonsense; when the events go into ERROR state, it's a
>>>> permanent fail, they'll not come back.
>>> It's not true.  The guest LBR event with 'ERROR state' or 'oncpu != -1'
>>> would be
>>> lazy released and re-created in the next time the
>>> intel_pmu_create_lbr_event() is
>>> called and it's supposed to be re-scheduled and re-do availability_check()
>>> as well.
>> Where? Also, wth would you need to destroy and re-create an event for
>> that?
> If the guest does not set the EN_LBR bit and did not touch any LBR-related 
> registers
> in the last time slice, KVM will destroy the guest LBR event in 
> kvm_pmu_cleanup()
> which is called once every time the vCPU thread is scheduled in.
> 
> The re-creation is not directly called after the destruction
> but is triggered by the next guest access to the LBR-related registers if any.
> 
>  From the time when the guest LBR event enters the "oncpu! = -1" state
> to the next re-creation, the guest LBR is not available. After the 
> re-creation,
> the guest LBR is hopefully available and if it's true, the LBR will be 
> passthrough
> and used by the guest normally.
> 
> That's the reason for "LBR is temporarily unavailable"

Do you still have any concerns on this issue?

> and please let me know if it doesn't make sense to you.
> 
>>>>> @@ -6696,8 +6696,10 @@ static fastpath_t vmx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>>> *vcpu)
>>>>>        pt_guest_enter(vmx);
>>>>> -    if (vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)->version)
>>>>> +    if (vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)->version) {
>>>>>            atomic_switch_perf_msrs(vmx);
>>>>> +        kvm_x86_ops.pmu_ops->availability_check(vcpu);
>>>>> +    }
>>>> AFAICT you just did a call out to the kvm_pmu crud in
>>>> atomic_switch_perf_msrs(), why do another call?
>>> In fact, availability_check() is only called here for just one time.
>>>
>>> The callchain looks like:
>>> - vmx_vcpu_run()
>>>      - kvm_x86_ops.pmu_ops->availability_check();
>>>          - intel_pmu_availability_check()
>>>              - intel_pmu_lbr_is_availabile()
>>>                  - event_is_oncpu() ...
>>>
>> What I'm saying is that you just did a pmu_ops indirect call in
>> atomic_switch_perf_msrs(), why add another?
> Do you mean the indirect call:
> - atomic_switch_perf_msrs()
>      - perf_guest_get_msrs()
>          - x86_pmu.guest_get_msrs()
> ?
> 
> The two pmu_ops are quite different:
> - the first one in atomic_switch_perf_msrs() is defined in the host side;
> - the second one for availability_check() is defined in the KVM side;
> 
> The availability_check() for guest LBR event and MSRs pass-through
> operations are definitely KVM context specific.

Do you still have any concerns on this issue?

If you have more comments on the patchset, please let me know.

> 
> Thanks,
> Like Xu
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists