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]
Message-ID: <DM5PR1101MB22663D2305EAC6A3D00F239580980@DM5PR1101MB2266.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:30:06 +0000
From:   "Kang, Luwei" <luwei.kang@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "wanpengli@...cent.com" <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com" 
        <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "like.xu@...ux.intel.com" <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a dedicated
 counter for guest PEBS

> > > > 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.
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> To avoid the pinning counters, I have tried to do some evaluation about
> patching the PEBS record for guest in KVM. In this approach, about ~30% time
> increased on guest PEBS PMI handler latency ( e.g.perf record -e branch-
> loads:p -c 1000 ~/Tools/br_instr a).
> 
> Some implementation details as below:
> 1. Patching the guest PEBS records "Applicable Counters" filed when the guest
>      required counter is not the same with the host. Because the guest PEBS
>      driver will drop these PEBS records if the "Applicable Counters" not the
>      same with the required counter index.
> 2. Traping the guest driver's behavior(VM-exit) of disabling PEBS.
>      It happens before reading PEBS records (e.g. PEBS PMI handler, before
>      application exit and so on)
> 3. To patch the Guest PEBS records in KVM, we need to get the HPA of the
>      guest PEBS buffer.
>      <1> Trapping the guest write of IA32_DS_AREA register and get the GVA
>              of guest DS_AREA.
>      <2> Translate the DS AREA GVA to GPA(kvm_mmu_gva_to_gpa_read)
>              and get the GVA of guest PEBS buffer from DS AREA
>              (kvm_vcpu_read_guest_atomic).
>      <3> Although we have got the GVA of PEBS buffer, we need to do the
>              address translation(GVA->GPA->HPA) for each page. Because we can't
>              assume the GPAs of Guest PEBS buffer are always continuous.
> 
> But we met another issue about the PEBS counter reset field in DS AREA.
> pebs_event_reset in DS area has to be set for auto reload, which is per counter.
> Guest and Host may use different counters. Let's say guest wants to use
> counter 0, but host assign counter 1 to guest. Guest sets the reset value to
> pebs_event_reset[0]. However, since counter 1 is the one which is eventually
> scheduled, HW will use  pebs_event_reset[1] as reset value.
> 
> We can't copy the value of the guest pebs_event_reset[0] to
> pebs_event_reset[1] directly(Patching DS AREA) because the guest driver may
> confused, and we can't assume the guest counter 0 and 1 are not used for this
> PEBS task at the same time. And what's more, KVM can't aware the guest
> read/write to the DS AREA because it just a general memory for guest.
> 
> What is your opinion or do you have a better proposal?

Kindly ping~

Thanks,
Luwei Kang

> 
> Thanks,
> Luwei Kang
> 
> >
> > > 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?