| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALMp9eQQ7SvDNy3iKSrRTn9QUR9h1M-tSnuYO0Y4_-+bgV72sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:29:53 -0800
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>,
Dongli Cao <caodongli@...gsoft.com>,
Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: X86: Emulate APERF/MPERF to report actual vCPU frequency
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 12:37 AM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 30/12/2021 10:36 am, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 4:28 PM Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 8:06 PM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jim,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your detailed comments.
> >>>
> >>> On 29/12/2021 9:11 am, Jim Mattson wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:34 AM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The aperf/mperf are used to report current CPU frequency after 7d5905dc14a.
> >>>>> But guest kernel always reports a fixed vCPU frequency in the /proc/cpuinfo,
> >>>>> which may confuse users especially when turbo is enabled on the host or
> >>>>> when the vCPU has a noisy high power consumption neighbour task.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most guests such as Linux will only read accesses to AMPERF msrs, where
> >>>>> we can passthrough registers to the vcpu as the fast-path (a performance win)
> >>>>> and once any write accesses are trapped, the emulation will be switched to
> >>>>> slow-path, which emulates guest APERF/MPERF values based on host values.
> >>>>> In emulation mode, the returned MPERF msr value will be scaled according
> >>>>> to the TSCRatio value.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a minimum effort, KVM exposes the AMPERF feature when the host TSC
> >>>>> has CONSTANT and NONSTOP features, to avoid the need for more code
> >>>>> to cover various coner cases coming from host power throttling transitions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The slow path code reveals an opportunity to refactor update_vcpu_amperf()
> >>>>> and get_host_amperf() to be more flexible and generic, to cover more
> >>>>> power-related msrs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Requested-by: Dongli Cao <caodongli@...gsoft.com>
> >>>>> Requested-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> v1 -> v2 Changelog:
> >>>>> - Use MSR_TYPE_R to passthrough as a fast path;
> >>>>> - Use [svm|vmx]_set_msr for emulation as a slow path;
> >>>>> - Interact MPERF with TSC scaling (Jim Mattson);
> >>>>> - Drop bool hw_coord_fb_cap with cpuid check;
> >>>>> - Add TSC CONSTANT and NONSTOP cpuid check;
> >>>>> - Duplicate static_call(kvm_x86_run) to make the branch predictor happier;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Previous:
> >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200623063530.81917-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 12 +++++
> >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 3 ++
> >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h | 22 +++++++++
> >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 15 ++++++
> >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h | 2 +-
> >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 18 ++++++-
> >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>> 7 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> index ce622b89c5d8..1cad3992439e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@
> >>>>>
> >>>>> #define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 1024
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +#define KVM_MAX_NUM_HWP_MSR 2
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * In x86, the VCPU ID corresponds to the APIC ID, and APIC IDs
> >>>>> * might be larger than the actual number of VCPUs because the
> >>>>> @@ -562,6 +564,14 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer {
> >>>>> bool msg_pending;
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +/* vCPU thermal and power context */
> >>>>> +struct kvm_vcpu_hwp {
> >>>>> + bool fast_path;
> >>>>> + /* [0], APERF msr, increases with the current/actual frequency */
> >>>>> + /* [1], MPERF msr, increases with a fixed frequency */
> >>>>
> >>>> According to the SDM, volume 3, section 18.7.2,
> >>>> * The TSC, IA32_MPERF, and IA32_FIXED_CTR2 operate at close to the
> >>>> maximum non-turbo frequency, which is equal to the product of scalable
> >>>> bus frequency and maximum non-turbo ratio.
> >>>
> >>> For AMD, it will be the P0 frequency.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's important to note that IA32_MPERF operates at close to the same
> >>>> frequency of the TSC. If that were not the case, your comment
> >>>> regarding IA32_APERF would be incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, how does this look:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>> index f8f978bc9ec3..d422bf8669ca 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>> @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer {
> >>> struct kvm_vcpu_hwp {
> >>> bool fast_path;
> >>> /* [0], APERF msr, increases with the current/actual frequency */
> >>> - /* [1], MPERF msr, increases with a fixed frequency */
> >>> + /* [1], MPERF msr, increases at the same fixed frequency as the TSC */
> >>> u64 msrs[KVM_MAX_NUM_HWP_MSR];
> >>> };
> >>
> >> That looks fine from the Intel perspective. (Note that I have not
> >> looked at AMD's documentation yet.)
>
> FYI, AMD has something like {A,M}perfReadOnly msrs
> while it‘s not friendly to the millions legacy guests.
To be honest, if you're going to enlighten the guests that use this
functionality, I can't see any reason to preserve IA32_MPERF or to
provide AMD's MPERF_RD_ONLY MSR. With an invariant TSC, these MSRs
seem to be completely redundant. Obviously, if you're going to
virtualize CPUID.06H:ECX[0], then you have to provide IA32_MPERF. It
is unclear from AMD's documentation if CPUID.06H:ECX[0] implies the
existence of the read-only variants in AMD's MSR space as well as the
standard IA32_MPERF and IA32_APERF MSRs in Intel's MSR space.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, suppose that the TSC frequency were 2.0 GHz, the
> >>>> current/actual frequency were 2.2 GHz, and the IA32_MPERF frequency
> >>>> were 133 MHz. In that case, the IA32_APERF MSR would increase at 146.3
> >>>> MHz.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> + u64 msrs[KVM_MAX_NUM_HWP_MSR];
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> /* Hyper-V synthetic interrupt controller (SynIC)*/
> >>>>> struct kvm_vcpu_hv_synic {
> >>>>> u64 version;
> >>>>> @@ -887,6 +897,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> >>>>> /* AMD MSRC001_0015 Hardware Configuration */
> >>>>> u64 msr_hwcr;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + struct kvm_vcpu_hwp hwp;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> /* pv related cpuid info */
> >>>>> struct {
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >>>>> index 0b920e12bb6d..e20e5e8c2b3a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >>>>> @@ -739,6 +739,9 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
> >>>>> entry->eax = 0x4; /* allow ARAT */
> >>>>> entry->ebx = 0;
> >>>>> entry->ecx = 0;
> >>>>> + /* allow aperf/mperf to report the true vCPU frequency. */
> >>>>> + if (kvm_cpu_cap_has_amperf())
> >>>>> + entry->ecx |= (1 << 0);
> >>>>> entry->edx = 0;
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> /* function 7 has additional index. */
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> >>>>> index c99edfff7f82..741949b407b7 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> >>>>> @@ -154,6 +154,28 @@ static inline int guest_cpuid_stepping(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> return x86_stepping(best->eax);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static inline bool kvm_cpu_cap_has_amperf(void)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + return boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF) &&
> >>>>> + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC) &&
> >>>>> + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static inline bool guest_support_amperf(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *best;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!kvm_cpu_cap_has_amperf())
> >>>>> + return false;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + best = kvm_find_cpuid_entry(vcpu, 0x6, 0);
> >>>>> + if (!best || !(best->ecx & 0x1))
> >>>>> + return false;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + best = kvm_find_cpuid_entry(vcpu, 0x80000007, 0);
> >>>>> + return best && (best->edx & (1 << 8));
> >>>> Nit: Use BIT().
> >>>
> >>> Applied.
> >>>
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> static inline bool guest_has_spec_ctrl_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> return (guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL) ||
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> >>>>> index 5557867dcb69..2873c7f132bd 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> >>>>> @@ -114,6 +114,8 @@ static const struct svm_direct_access_msrs {
> >>>>> { .index = MSR_EFER, .always = false },
> >>>>> { .index = MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, .always = false },
> >>>>> { .index = MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB, .always = true },
> >>>>> + { .index = MSR_IA32_MPERF, .always = false },
> >>>>> + { .index = MSR_IA32_APERF, .always = false },
> >>>>> { .index = MSR_INVALID, .always = false },
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -1218,6 +1220,12 @@ static inline void init_vmcb_after_set_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> /* No need to intercept these MSRs */
> >>>>> set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP, 1, 1);
> >>>>> set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, 1, 1);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (guest_support_amperf(vcpu)) {
> >>>>> + set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_MPERF, 1, 0);
> >>>>> + set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_APERF, 1, 0);
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.fast_path = true;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -3078,6 +3086,13 @@ static int svm_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr)
> >>>>> svm->msr_decfg = data;
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_APERF:
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_MPERF:
> >>>>> + if (vcpu->arch.hwp.fast_path) {
> >>>>> + set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_MPERF, 0, 0);
> >>>>> + set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_APERF, 0, 0);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + return kvm_set_msr_common(vcpu, msr);
> >>>>> default:
> >>>>> return kvm_set_msr_common(vcpu, msr);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h
> >>>>> index 9f153c59f2c8..ad4659811620 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h
> >>>>> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
> >>>>> #define IOPM_SIZE PAGE_SIZE * 3
> >>>>> #define MSRPM_SIZE PAGE_SIZE * 2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -#define MAX_DIRECT_ACCESS_MSRS 20
> >>>>> +#define MAX_DIRECT_ACCESS_MSRS 22
> >>>>> #define MSRPM_OFFSETS 16
> >>>>> extern u32 msrpm_offsets[MSRPM_OFFSETS] __read_mostly;
> >>>>> extern bool npt_enabled;
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >>>>> index 1d53b8144f83..8998042107d2 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >>>>> @@ -576,6 +576,9 @@ static bool is_valid_passthrough_msr(u32 msr)
> >>>>> case MSR_LBR_CORE_FROM ... MSR_LBR_CORE_FROM + 8:
> >>>>> case MSR_LBR_CORE_TO ... MSR_LBR_CORE_TO + 8:
> >>>>> /* LBR MSRs. These are handled in vmx_update_intercept_for_lbr_msrs() */
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_MPERF:
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_APERF:
> >>>>> + /* AMPERF MSRs. These are passthrough when all access is read-only. */
> >>>>
> >>>> Even if all accesses are read-only, these MSRs cannot be pass-through
> >>>> when the 'Use TSC scaling' VM-execution control is set and the TSC
> >>>> multiplier is anything other than 1.
> >>>
> >>> If all accesses are read-only, rdmsr will not be trapped and in that case:
> >>>
> >>> The value read is scaled by the TSCRatio value (MSR C000_0104h) for
> >>> guest reads, but the underlying counters are not affected. Reads in host
> >>> mode or writes to MPERF are not affected. [AMD APM 17.3.2]
> >>
> >> It's nice of AMD to scale reads of IA32_MPERF. That certainly
> >> simplifies the problem of virtualizing these MSRs. However, Intel is
> >> not so kind.
>
> What a pity. Maybe we can enable amperf for AMD guests as well as
> Intel guests which has TSC multiplier is 1 as the first step.
Unfortunately, KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID is a device ioctl, so if you
declare support for CPUID.06H:ECX[0] there, then you have to support
it for all vCPU configurations on the host. Given the enormous
overhead of the slow path, perhaps KVM_GET_EMULATED_CPUID is a better
place to report it.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Suppose, for example, that the vCPU has a TSC frequency of 2.2 GHz,
> >>>> but it is running on a host with a TSC frequency of 2.0 GHz. The
> >>>> effective IA32_MPERF frequency should be the same as the vCPU TSC
> >>>> frequency (scaled by the TSC multiplier), rather than the host
> >>>> IA32_MPERF frequency.
> >>>
> >>> I guess that Intel's implementation will also imply the effect of
> >>> the TSC multiplier for guest reads. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
> >>
> >> From the description of the "Use TSC scaling" VM-execution control in
> >> Table 23-7: "This control determines whether executions of RDTSC,
> >> executions of RDTSCP, and executions of RDMSR that read from the
> >> IA32_TIME_STAMP_COUNTER MSR return a value modified by the TSC
> >> multiplier field (see Section 23.6.5 and Section 24.3)."
> >>
> >> If you want to scale guest reads of IA32_MPERF, you will have to
> >> intercept them and perform the scaling in software.
>
> I don't think slow-path-always is a good option for enablment and we could
> probably request Intel to behave similarly for the IA32_MPERF guest reads.
Get that request in now, and you may see the feature in five or six
years! While it may be possible for Intel to do the scaling in a
microcode patch, I wouldn't hold my breath.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> return true;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -2224,7 +2227,14 @@ static int vmx_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> ret = kvm_set_msr_common(vcpu, msr_info);
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_APERF:
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_MPERF:
> >>>>> + if (vcpu->arch.hwp.fast_path) {
> >>>>> + vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_APERF, MSR_TYPE_RW, true);
> >>>>> + vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_MPERF, MSR_TYPE_RW, true);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + ret = kvm_set_msr_common(vcpu, msr_info);
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> default:
> >>>>> find_uret_msr:
> >>>>> msr = vmx_find_uret_msr(vmx, msr_index);
> >>>>> @@ -6928,6 +6938,12 @@ static int vmx_create_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, MSR_CORE_C7_RESIDENCY, MSR_TYPE_R);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + if (guest_support_amperf(vcpu)) {
> >>>>> + vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_MPERF, MSR_TYPE_R);
> >>>>> + vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_APERF, MSR_TYPE_R);
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.fast_path = true;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> vmx->loaded_vmcs = &vmx->vmcs01;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (cpu_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(vcpu)) {
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >>>>> index 42bde45a1bc2..7a6355815493 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >>>>> @@ -1376,6 +1376,8 @@ static const u32 msrs_to_save_all[] = {
> >>>>> MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL3, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL4, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL5,
> >>>>> MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR0, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR1, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR2,
> >>>>> MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR3, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR4, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR5,
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + MSR_IA32_APERF, MSR_IA32_MPERF,
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static u32 msrs_to_save[ARRAY_SIZE(msrs_to_save_all)];
> >>>>> @@ -3685,6 +3687,16 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>>>> return 1;
> >>>>> vcpu->arch.msr_misc_features_enables = data;
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_APERF:
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_MPERF:
> >>>>> + /* Ignore meaningless value overrides from user space.*/
> >>>>> + if (msr_info->host_initiated)
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> Without these meaningless overrides from userspace, how do we ensure
> >>>> that the guest derives the correct IA32_APERF/IA32_MPERF ratio for a
> >>>
> >>> The guest cares about the ratio of the two deltas rather than APERF/MPERF ratio.
> >>>
> >>> Effective frequency = {(APERF − APERF_INIT) / (MPERF − MPERF_INIT)} * P0 frequency
> >>
> >> My question was, "How do you ensure the deltas are correct when
> >> APERF_INIT and MPERF_INIT are sampled before live migration and APERF
> >> and MPERF are sampled after live migration?" (Using your equation
> >> above.)
> >>
> >>>> set of measurements that span a live migration? For that matter, how
> >>>> do we ensure that the deltas are even positive?
> >>>
> >>> Once we allow the user space to restore AMPERF msr values different from
> >>> the host values, the slow path will be walked and we try to avoid this kind
> >>> of case due to overhead, whatever for live migration or pCPU migration.
> >>
> >> Nonetheless, your implementation does not work.
>
> The fast path is a performance win and any exit-path approach
> will break all the effort. The guests rely on statistical figures.
Yes, the fast path is a performance win. Unfortunately, it does not
implement the architectural specification.
I would be hard-pressed to enumerate every x86 O/S that has been or
ever will be written, let alone make assertions about how they use
this feature.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, suppose that the VM has migrated from a host with an
> >>>> IA32_MPERF value of 0x0000123456789abc to a host with an IA32_MPERF
> >>>> value of 0x000000123456789a. If the guest sampled IA32_MPERF before
> >>>> and after live migration, it would see the counter go backwards, which
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it will happen since without more hints from KVM, the user space
> >>> can't be sure if the save/restore time is in the sample period of AMPERF.
> >>> And even worse, guest could manipulate reading order of the AMPERF.
> >>>
> >>> The proposal is to *let it happen* because it causes no harm, in the meantime,
> >>> what the guest really cares about is the deltas ratio, not the accuracy of
> >>> individual msr values, and if the result in this sample is ridiculous, the guest
> >>> should go and pick the result from the next sample.
> >>
> >> You do not get to define the architecture. The CPU vendors have
> >> already done that. Your job is to adhere to the architectural
> >> specification.
>
> In principle I strongly agree.
>
> As opposed to not having this feature, the end user is likely to accept
> the occasional miss of a sample to trade with the performance devil.
>
> >>
> >>> Maybe we could add fault tolerance for AMPERF in the guest, something like
> >>> a retry mechnism or just discarding extreme values to follow statistical methods.
> >>
> >> That sounds like a parairtual approach to me. There is nothing in the
> >> architectural specification that suggests that such mechanisms are
> >> necessary.
>
> KVM doesn't reject the PV approach, does it?
Not at all. If you want to define this as a kvm paravirtual feature,
advertised in CPUID.40000001H, I would be open to letting you define
the specification the way you want.
> >>
> >>> The good news is the robustness like Linux guest on this issue is appreciated.
> >>> (9a6c2c3c7a73ce315c57c1b002caad6fcc858d0f and more stuff)
> >>>
> >>> Considering that the sampling period of amperf is relatively frequent compared
> >>> with the workload runtime and it statistically reports the right vCPU frequency,
> >>> do you think this meaningless proposal is acceptable or practicable ?
> >>
> >> My opinion is that your proposal is unacceptable, but I am not a decision maker.
>
> We do respect any comments in the community, especially yours in the context of TSC.
> Thanks for your time and clear attitude.
>
> TBH, I'm open to any better proposal, as a practice of "it's worth doing well".
For existing hardware features, doing it well begins by implementing
the specification. Once you have a working implementation, then you
can optimize.
For new paravirtual features, doing it well essentially comes down to
developing a clean design that will stand the test of time and that
enlightened guests are likely to adopt.
> >>
> >>>> should not happen.
> >>>>
> >>>>> + if (!guest_support_amperf(vcpu))
> >>>>> + return 1;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[MSR_IA32_APERF - msr] = data;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.fast_path = false;
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> default:
> >>>>> if (kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr(vcpu, msr))
> >>>>> return kvm_pmu_set_msr(vcpu, msr_info);
> >>>>> @@ -4005,6 +4017,17 @@ int kvm_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>>>> case MSR_K7_HWCR:
> >>>>> msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.msr_hwcr;
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_APERF:
> >>>>> + case MSR_IA32_MPERF: {
> >>>> ]> + u64 value;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!msr_info->host_initiated && !guest_support_amperf(vcpu))
> >>>>> + return 1;
> >>>>> + value = vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[MSR_IA32_APERF - msr_info->index];
> >>>>> + msr_info->data = (msr_info->index == MSR_IA32_APERF) ? value :
> >>>>> + kvm_scale_tsc(vcpu, value, vcpu->arch.tsc_scaling_ratio);
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it makes more sense to perform the scaling before storing the
> >>>> IA32_MPERF value in vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[].
> >>>
> >>> Emm, do you really need to add more instruction cycles in the each call
> >>> of update_vcpu_amperf() in the critical path vcpu_enter_guest(), since the
> >>> calls to kvm_get_msr_commom() are relatively sparse.
> >>
> >> One possible alternative may be for kvm to take over the IA32_MPERF
> >> and IA32_APERF MSRs on sched-in. That may result in less overhead.
>
> For less overhead this seems true, but the amperf data belongs to the
> last shced time slice, which violates accuracy.
I know it's not this easy, but as a strawman, suppose we did something
like the following:
At sched-in:
1. Save host APERF/MPERF values from the MSRs.
2. Load the "current" guest APERF/MPERF values into the MSRs (if the
vCPU configuration allows for unintercepted reads).
At sched-out:
1. Calculate the guest APERF/MPERF deltas for use in step 3.
2. Save the "current" guest APERF/MPERF values.
3. "Restore" the host APERF/MPERF values, but add in the deltas from step 1.
Without any writes to IA32_MPERF, I would expect these MSRs to be
synchronized across all logical processors, and the proposal above
would break that synchronization.
> >>
> >>> Will we get a functional error if we defer the kvm_scale_tsc() operation ?
> >>
> >> If you accumulate IA32_MPERF cycles from multiple hosts with different
> >> IA32_MPERF frequencies and you defer the kvm_scale_tsc operation,
> >> then, yes, this is broken.
>
> Yes, how about we defer it until before any steps leading to a change in TSC ?
>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> default:
> >>>>> if (kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr(vcpu, msr_info->index))
> >>>>> return kvm_pmu_get_msr(vcpu, msr_info);
> >>>>> @@ -9688,6 +9711,53 @@ void __kvm_request_immediate_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kvm_request_immediate_exit);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static inline void get_host_amperf(u64 msrs[])
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APERF, msrs[0]);
> >>>>> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, msrs[1]);
Note that these RDMSRs should probably be appropriately fenced, to
keep them from drifting apart in the OOO stream. On Intel, I believe
they should be preceded by "mfence; lfence" and followed by "lfence".
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static inline u64 get_amperf_delta(u64 enter, u64 exit)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + if (likely(exit >= enter))
> >>>>> + return exit - enter;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return ULONG_MAX - enter + exit;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static inline void update_vcpu_amperf(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 adelta, u64 mdelta)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + u64 aperf_left, mperf_left, delta, tmp;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + aperf_left = ULONG_MAX - vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[0];
> >>>>> + mperf_left = ULONG_MAX - vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[1];
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Fast path when neither MSR overflows */
> >>>>> + if (adelta <= aperf_left && mdelta <= mperf_left) {
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[0] += adelta;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[1] += mdelta;
> >>>>> + return;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* When either MSR overflows, both MSRs are reset to zero and continue to increment. */
> >>>>> + delta = min(adelta, mdelta);
> >>>>> + if (delta > aperf_left || delta > mperf_left) {
> >>>>> + tmp = max(vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[0], vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[1]);
> >>>>> + tmp = delta - (ULONG_MAX - tmp) - 1;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[0] = tmp + adelta - delta;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[1] = tmp + mdelta - delta;
> >>>>> + return;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't believe that the math above is correct in the general case. It
> >>>> appears to assume that the counters are running at the same frequency.
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying that if the guest counter is not considered to be running
> >>> at the same frequency as the host, we need to wrap mdelta with
> >>> kvm_scale_tsc() to accumulate the mdelta difference for a vmentry/exit ?
> >>
> >> No. I just think your math/logic is wrong. Consider the following example:
> >>
> >> At time t0, IA32_MPERF is -1000, and IA32_APERF is -1999. At time t1,
> >> IA32_MPERF and IA32_APERF are both 1. Even assuming a constant CPU
> >> frequency between t0 and t1, the possible range of actual frequency
> >> are from half the TSC frequency to double the TSC frequency,
> >> exclusive. If IA32_APERF is counting at just over half the TSC
> >> frequency, then IA32_MPERF will hit 0 first. In this case, at t1, the
> >> MPERF delta will be 1001, and the APERF delta will be ~502. However,
>
> Uh, you're right and I messed it up.
>
> >> if IA32_APERF is counting at just under double the TSC frequency, then
> >> IA32_APERF will hit 0 first, but just barely. In this case, at t1, the
> >> MPERF delta will be ~1000, and the APERF delta will be 2000.
> >>
> >> Your code only works in the latter case, where both IA32_APERF and
> >> IA32_MPERF hit 0 at the same time. The fundamental problem is the
> >> handling of the wrap-around in get_amperf_delta. You construct the
>
> It's true and I have to rework this part.
>
> With hwp.msrs[mperf] reset to 0, it is hard to emulate the current
> value of hwp.msrs[aperf] and the value of aperf counter remaining.
>
> How about we assume that this aperf counter increases uniformly
> between the two calls to the get_host_amperf() ?
That's fine, but you still have no way of knowing which one hit 0
first. Now, if you sampled TSC as well, then you'd be able to tell.
> Please note AMD doesn't have this kind of interlocking.
Wrap-around shouldn't really be an issue, unless someone writes an
unusually high value to one of these MSRs.
> >> wrap-around delta as if the counter went all the way to ULONG_MAX
> >> before being reset to 0, yet, we know that one of the counters is not
> >> likely to have made it that far.
> >>
> >>>> The whole point of this exercise is that the counters do not always
> >>>> run at the same frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (mdelta > adelta && mdelta > aperf_left) {
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[0] = 0;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[1] = mdelta - mperf_left - 1;
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[0] = adelta - aperf_left - 1;
> >>>>> + vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs[1] = 0;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand this code at all. It seems quite unlikely that you
> >>>
> >>> The value of two msr's will affect the other when one overflows:
> >>>
> >>> * When either MSR overflows, both MSRs are reset to zero and
> >>> continue to increment. [Intel SDM, CHAPTER 14, 14.2]
> >>>
> >>>> are ever going to catch a wraparound at just the right point for one
> >>>> of the MSRs to be 0. Moreover, since the two counters are not counting
> >>>> the same thing, it doesn't seem likely that it would ever be correct
> >>>> to derive the guest's IA32_APERF value from IA32_MPERF or vice versa.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * Returns 1 to let vcpu_run() continue the guest execution loop without
> >>>>> * exiting to the userspace. Otherwise, the value will be returned to the
> >>>>> @@ -9700,7 +9770,7 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> dm_request_for_irq_injection(vcpu) &&
> >>>>> kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> >>>>> fastpath_t exit_fastpath;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> + u64 before[2], after[2];
> >>>>> bool req_immediate_exit = false;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Forbid vmenter if vcpu dirty ring is soft-full */
> >>>>> @@ -9942,7 +10012,16 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_apicv_activated(vcpu->kvm) != kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu));
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - exit_fastpath = static_call(kvm_x86_run)(vcpu);
> >>>>> + if (likely(vcpu->arch.hwp.fast_path)) {
> >>>>> + exit_fastpath = static_call(kvm_x86_run)(vcpu);
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + get_host_amperf(before);
> >>>>> + exit_fastpath = static_call(kvm_x86_run)(vcpu);
> >>>>> + get_host_amperf(after);
> >>>>> + update_vcpu_amperf(vcpu, get_amperf_delta(before[0], after[0]),
> >>>>> + get_amperf_delta(before[1], after[1]));
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>> The slow path is awfully expensive here. Shouldn't there also be an
> >>>> option to do none of this, if the guest doesn't advertise CPUID.06H:
> >>>> ECX[0]?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it looks pretty good to me and let me figure it out.
> >>
> >> Your slow path seems fundamentally broken, in that IA32_MPERF only
> >> counts while the vCPU thread is running. It should count all of the
> >> time, just as the guest TSC does. For example, we offer a low-cost VM
> >> that is throttled to run at most 50% of the time. Anyone looking at
>
> I'm not sure if the "50% throttled" is equivalent to two vCPUs on one pCPU [1].
Effectively, it is the same.
> >> the APERF/MPERF ratio for such a VM should see the 50% duty cycle
> >> reflected as IA32_APERF advancing at half the frequency of IA32_MPERF.
> >> However, if IA32_MPERF only advances when the vCPU thread is running,
> >> the apparent performance will be inflated by 2x.
> >
> > Actually, your fast path is similarly broken, in that IA32_APERF
> > should only count while the vCPU is running (or at least scheduled).
> > As it stands, the 50% duty cycle VM will get an inflated APERF/MPERF
> > ratio using the fast path, because it will be credited APERF cycles
> > while it is descheduled and other tasks are running. Per section
>
> For fast-path, I have reproduced this with the pCPU oversubscription condition.
>
> I'm not sure we can make it work completely,
> or have to make it a restriction on the use of this feature.
>
> If you find any more design flaws, please let me know.
As is often the case with performance monitoring, it is unclear to me
exactly what the semantics should be for APERF cycles in a virtualized
environment.
>From the overcommit scenario, I think it is clear that the host's
APERF cycles should be allocated to at most one guest, and not
replicated for every vCPU thread sharing a logical processor. I think
it is also clear that APERF cycles accumulated while in VMX non-root
mode should be allocated to the running vCPU.
Beyond that, I have some uncertainty.
If a totally unrelated process, like 'ls' executes on the same logical
processor, I assume that its accumulated APERF cycles should not be
allocated to any VM. This leads me to think that, at most, the APERF
cycles between a vCPU thread's sched-in and its sched-out should be
allocated to that vCPU.
Now come some harder questions. If the vCPU thread is executing CPUID
in a loop, should all of the APERF cycles spent transitioning into and
out of VMX non-root mode be allocated to the vCPU? What about the
cycles spent emulating the CPUID instruction in kvm? Should they all
be allocated to the vCPU, or will that leave the guest with an
inflated idea of performance? What if "enable_unrestricted_guest" is
false, and we spend a lot of time emulating real-address mode in the
guest? Should those APERF cycles be allocated to the vCPU? Similarly,
what if we're running a nested guest, and all of the VMX instructions
in L1 have to be emulated by kvm? Should all of those APERF cycles be
allocated to the vCPU?
Clearly, there are some tradeoffs to be made between accuracy and performance.
What, exactly, are the requirements here?
> > 14.5.5 of the SDM, "The IA32_APERF counter does not count during
> > forced idle state." A vCPU thread being descheduled is the virtual
> > machine equivalent of a logical processor being forced idle by HDC.
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> if (likely(exit_fastpath != EXIT_FASTPATH_REENTER_GUEST))
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -11138,6 +11217,8 @@ void kvm_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init_event)
> >>>>> vcpu->arch.xcr0 = XFEATURE_MASK_FP;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + memset(vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs, 0, sizeof(vcpu->arch.hwp.msrs));
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> /* All GPRs except RDX (handled below) are zeroed on RESET/INIT. */
> >>>>> memset(vcpu->arch.regs, 0, sizeof(vcpu->arch.regs));
> >>>>> kvm_register_mark_dirty(vcpu, VCPU_REGS_RSP);
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 2.33.1
> >>>>>
> >>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists