[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKIz/J1HoOvbmR42@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 11:14:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, weijiang.yang@...el.com,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
wei.w.wang@...el.com, eranian@...gle.com, liuxiangdong5@...wei.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/16] KVM: x86/pmu: Reprogram PEBS event to emulate
guest PEBS counter
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:42:05AM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> @@ -99,6 +109,7 @@ static void pmc_reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u32 type,
> bool exclude_kernel, bool intr,
> bool in_tx, bool in_tx_cp)
> {
> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(pmc->vcpu);
> struct perf_event *event;
> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> .type = type,
> @@ -110,6 +121,7 @@ static void pmc_reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u32 type,
> .exclude_kernel = exclude_kernel,
> .config = config,
> };
> + bool pebs = test_bit(pmc->idx, (unsigned long *)&pmu->pebs_enable);
>
> attr.sample_period = get_sample_period(pmc, pmc->counter);
>
> @@ -124,9 +136,23 @@ static void pmc_reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u32 type,
> attr.sample_period = 0;
> attr.config |= HSW_IN_TX_CHECKPOINTED;
> }
> + if (pebs) {
> + /*
> + * The non-zero precision level of guest event makes the ordinary
> + * guest event becomes a guest PEBS event and triggers the host
> + * PEBS PMI handler to determine whether the PEBS overflow PMI
> + * comes from the host counters or the guest.
> + *
> + * For most PEBS hardware events, the difference in the software
> + * precision levels of guest and host PEBS events will not affect
> + * the accuracy of the PEBS profiling result, because the "event IP"
> + * in the PEBS record is calibrated on the guest side.
> + */
> + attr.precise_ip = 1;
> + }
>
> event = perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&attr, -1, current,
> - intr ? kvm_perf_overflow_intr :
> + (intr || pebs) ? kvm_perf_overflow_intr :
> kvm_perf_overflow, pmc);
How would pebs && !intr be possible? Also; wouldn't this be more legible
when written like:
perf_overflow_handler_t ovf = kvm_perf_overflow;
...
if (intr)
ovf = kvm_perf_overflow_intr;
...
event = perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&attr, -1, current, ovf, pmc);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists