[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aacf1eb4-26f6-4c62-9c4a-d8249a986c8c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0800
From: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: x86/pmu: Not to generate PEBS records for
emulated instructions
On 21/7/2022 8:51 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> "Don't" instead of "Not to". Not is an adverb, not a verb itself.
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022, Like Xu wrote:
>> From: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
>>
>> The KVM accumulate an enabeld counter for at least INSTRUCTIONS or
>
> Probably just "KVM" instead of "the KVM"?
>
> s/enabeld/enabled
Applied, thanks.
>
>> BRANCH_INSTRUCTION hw event from any KVM emulated instructions,
>> generating emulated overflow interrupt on counter overflow, which
>> in theory should also happen when the PEBS counter overflows but
>> it currently lacks this part of the underlying support (e.g. through
>> software injection of records in the irq context or a lazy approach).
>>
>> In this case, KVM skips the injection of this BUFFER_OVF PMI (effectively
>> dropping one PEBS record) and let the overflow counter move on. The loss
>> of a single sample does not introduce a loss of accuracy, but is easily
>> noticeable for certain specific instructions.
>>
>> This issue is expected to be addressed along with the issue
>> of PEBS cross-mapped counters with a slow-path proposal.
>>
>> Fixes: 79f3e3b58386 ("KVM: x86/pmu: Reprogram PEBS event to emulate guest PEBS counter")
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 11 ++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> index 02f9e4f245bd..08ee0fed63d5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> @@ -106,9 +106,14 @@ static inline void __kvm_perf_overflow(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, bool in_pmi)
>> return;
>>
>> if (pmc->perf_event && pmc->perf_event->attr.precise_ip) {
>> - /* Indicate PEBS overflow PMI to guest. */
>> - skip_pmi = __test_and_set_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_BUFFER_OVF_BIT,
>> - (unsigned long *)&pmu->global_status);
>> + if (!in_pmi) {
>> + /* The emulated instructions does not generate PEBS records. */
>
> This needs a better comment. IIUC, it's not that they don't generate records,
> it's that KVM is _choosing_ to not generate records to hack around a different
> bug(s). If that's true a TODO or FIXME would also be nice.
Indeed, to understand more of the context, this part will look like this:
if (!in_pmi) {
/*
* TODO: KVM is currently _choosing_ to not generate records
* for emulated instructions, avoiding BUFFER_OVF PMI when
* there are no records. Strictly speaking, it should be done
* as well in the right context to improve sampling accuracy.
*/
skip_pmi = true;
} else {
/* Indicate PEBS overflow PMI to guest. */
skip_pmi = __test_and_set_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_BUFFER_OVF_BIT,
(unsigned long *)&pmu->global_status);
}
, what do you think ?
>
>> + skip_pmi = true;
>> + } else {
>> + /* Indicate PEBS overflow PMI to guest. */
>> + skip_pmi = __test_and_set_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_BUFFER_OVF_BIT,
>> + (unsigned long *)&pmu->global_status);
>> + }
>> } else {
>> __set_bit(pmc->idx, (unsigned long *)&pmu->global_status);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.37.0
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists