Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:27:07 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>
Cc:     "linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] KVM: VMX: Fix VM entry failure on
 PT_MODE_HOST_GUEST while host is using PT



On 2022-09-15 10:30 p.m., Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:43 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>> On 2022-09-15 10:39 a.m., Wang, Wei W wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 9:55 PM Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-14 10:46 p.m., Wang, Wei W wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 4:26 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>>>> The perf_event_disable() eventually invokes the intel_pt_stop().
>>>>>> We already expose the intel_pt_stop()/cpu_emergency_stop_pt() to
>>>>>> other modules. I don't think we have to use the perf_event_disable().
>>>>>> Also, the
>>>>>> perf_event_disable() requires extra codes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went through the discussions. I agree with Sean's suggestion.
>>>>>> We should only put the logic in the KVM but all the MSR access
>>>>>> details into the PT driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the driver itself doesn’t drive the save/restore of the MSRs,
>>>>> it is drived
>>>> by perf.
>>>>
>>>> It through perf_event, not driven by perf_event. The perf_event
>>>> generic code never knows when should invokes each driver to
>>>> save/restore information. It should be driven by the other subsystem e.g.,
>> scheduler.
>>>
>>> Yes. The cpu scheduler does this via the perf subsystem, though.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For this case, KVM should drive the save/restore, and the PT driver
>>>> eventually does all the MSR access details.
>>>>
>>>>> 1. If we make KVM a user of perf, we should do this via
>>>> perf_event_disable/enable_*.
>>>>> 2. If we make KVM an alternative to perf (i.e. have direct control
>>>>> over PMU HW), we can do this via driver interfaces like perf.
>>>>> Per my experience, we should go for 1. Probably need Peter's
>>>>> opinions on
>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For 1, the perf_event_disable/enable_* are not enough. They don't
>>>> save/restore MSRs.
>>>
>>> perf_event_disable will go through perf to call pt_event_stop which saves
>> the related MSRs, right?
>>
>> I don't think so. The pt_event_stop() doesn't save all the
>> MSR_IA32_RTIT_* MSRs.
> 
> Not all the MSRs are required to be saved. In general, pt_event_stop should have
> saved all the MSRs required for an event switching. Otherwise the general usages
> of PT have been broken. To be more precise, the following MSRs are not saved by
> pt_event_stop, but I don’t see they are required to be saved:
> 
> - MSR_IA32_RTIT_CR3_MATCH: I don’t see it is used by perf. 
> Seems like KVM saved an MSR that's not even used by the host.
> 
> - Address range MSRs (MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR0_A etc.): Those are provided by s/w and not updated by h/w.
> So they're just set to MSRs when event gets scheduled in. There is no need to save. 
>

OK. I think you need a clean-up patch to fix them first.


>>
>>> (if so, what large changes did you mean?)
>>>
>>>> If we go to this way, we have to introduce a new generic interface to
>>>> ask each driver to save/restore their MSRs when the guest is
>>>> entering/exiting. We'd better combine the new interface with the
>>>> existing
>>>> perf_guest_get_msrs() of the core driver.
>>>> I think that's an ideal solution, but requires big changes in the code.
>>>>
>>>> 2 is the current KVM implementation. See pt_save_msr()/pt_load_msr().
>>>> I don't think it's a right way. We'd better fix it.
>>>>
>>>> The suggestion should be 3. The KVM notify the PT driver via the
>>>> interface provided by PT. The PT driver save/restore all the registers.
>>>> I think it's an acceptable solution with small code changes.
>>>
>>> This looks like we just relocate the save/restore functions to the PT driver
>> and KVM still directly call them - still not going through perf's management.
>> Imagine every user operates on the pmu h/w directly like this, things would be
>> a mess.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The pt_event_stop() and the proposed interface still manipulate the PT event
>> pt->handle.event. The event status is updated as well. It's still under control of
>> the perf_event.
> 
> Did you mean to handle the PT event in the proposed driver API? Event status is just
> one of the things. There are other things if we want to make it complete for this,
> e.g. event->oncpu = -1, and eventually seems we will re-implement perf_event_disable_*.
>

As my understand, perf always check the status first. If it's a stopped
or inactivated event, I don't think event->oncpu will be touched. That's
why I think the proposed driver API should be acceptable.

> Btw, Xiaoyao has made it work with perf_event_disable_local, and don’t have that many changes.
> If necessary, we can post the 2nd version out to double check.
>

I'm not worry about which ways (either perf_event_disable_local() or the
proposed PT driver API) are chosen to stop the PT. If the existing
perf_event interfaces can meet your requirement, that's perfect.

My real concern is the pt_save_msr()/pt_load_msr(). I don't think it's a
job for KVM. See atomic_switch_perf_msrs(). It is the perf core driver
rather than KVM that tells which MSRs should be saved/restored in VMCS.
We should do the same thing for PT. (Actually, I think we already
encounter issues with the current KVM-dominated method. KVM
saves/restores unnecessary MSRs. Right?)

To do so, I think there may be two ways.
- Since MSRs have to be switched for both PT and core drivers, it sounds
reasonable to provide a new generic interface in the perf_event. The new
interface is to tell KVM which MSRs should be saved/restored. Then KVM
can decide to save/restore via VMCS or direct MSR access. I suspect this
way requires big change, but it will benefit all the drivers which have
similar requirements.
- The proposed driver API. The MSRs are saved/restored in the PT driver.


Thanks,
Kan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists