[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd7df596-9715-e6a8-0040-18aecedb0fae@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:04:28 +0800
From: Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
wei.w.wang@...el.com, kan.liang@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND v13 03/10] KVM: x86/pmu: Use IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES to
adjust features visibility
On 2021/1/26 17:42, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/01/21 02:36, Like Xu wrote:
>>
>> @@ -401,6 +398,9 @@ static void intel_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> pmu->fixed_counters[i].idx = i + INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED;
>> pmu->fixed_counters[i].current_config = 0;
>> }
>> +
>> + vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities = guest_cpuid_has(vcpu,
>> X86_FEATURE_PDCM) ?
>> + vmx_get_perf_capabilities() : 0;
>
> There is one thing I don't understand with this patch: intel_pmu_init is
> not called when CPUID is changed. So I would have thought that anything
> that uses guest_cpuid_has must stay in intel_pmu_refresh. As I understand
> it vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities is always set to 0
> (vmx_get_perf_capabilities is never called), and kvm_set_msr_common would
> fail to set any bit in the MSR. What am I missing?
>
> In addition, the code of patch 4:
>
> + if (!intel_pmu_lbr_is_enabled(vcpu)) {
> + vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities &= ~PMU_CAP_LBR_FMT;
> + lbr_desc->records.nr = 0;
> + }
>
> is not okay after MSR changes. The value written by the host must be
> either rejected (with "return 1") or applied unchanged.
>
> Fortunately I think this code is dead if you move the check in kvm_set_msr
> from patch 9 to patch 4. However, in patch 9 vmx_get_perf_capabilities()
> must only set the LBR format bits if intel_pmu_lbr_is_compatible(vcpu).
Thanks for the guidance. How about handling it in this way:
In the intel_pmu_init():
vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities = 0;
lbr_desc->records.nr = 0;
In the intel_pmu_refresh():
if (guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM)) {
vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities = vmx_get_perf_capabilities();
if (!lbr_desc->records.nr)
vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities &= ~PMU_CAP_LBR_FMT;
}
In the vmx_set_msr():
case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
// set up lbr_desc->records.nr
if (!intel_pmu_lbr_is_compatible(vcpu))
return 1;
ret = kvm_set_msr_common(vcpu, msr_info);
In the kvm_set_msr_common():
case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities = data;
kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu);
>
>
> The patches look good apart from these issues and the other nits I pointed
> out. However, you need testcases here, for both kvm-unit-tests and
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm.
>
> For KVM, it would be at least a basic check that looks for the MSR LBR
> (using the MSR indices for the various processors), does a branch, and
> checks that the FROM_IP/TO_IP are good. You can write the kvm-unit-tests
> using the QEMU option "-cpu host,migratable=no": if you do this, QEMU will
> pick the KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID bits and move them more or less directly
> into the guest CPUID.
>
> For tools/testing/selftests/kvm, your test need to check the effect of
> various CPUID settings on the PERF_CAPABILITIES MSR, check that whatever
> you write with KVM_SET_MSR is _not_ modified and can be retrieved with
> KVM_GET_MSR, and check that invalid LBR formats are rejected.
Thanks, I will add the above tests in the next version.
>
> I'm really, really sorry for leaving these patches on my todo list for
> months, but you guys need to understand the main reason for this: they come
> with no testcases. A large patch series adding userspace APIs and
> complicated CPUID/MSR processing *automatically* goes to the bottom of my
> queue, because:
>
> - I need to go with a fine comb over all the userspace API changes, I
> cannot just look at test code and see if it works.
>
> - I will have no way to test its correctness after it's committed.
>
> For you, the work ends when your patch is accepted. For me, that's when
> the work begins, and I need to make sure that the patch will be
> maintainable in the future.
>
> Thanks, and sorry again for the delay.
>
> Paolo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists