Message-ID: <Y9RUOvJ5dkCU9J8C@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 22:46:18 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, like.xu.linux@...il.com,
        kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] Introduce Architectural LBR for vPMU

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> Intel CPU model-specific LBR(Legacy LBR) has evolved to Architectural
> LBR(Arch LBR [0]), it's the replacement of legacy LBR on new platforms.
> The native support patches were merged into 5.9 kernel tree, and this
> patch series is to enable Arch LBR in vPMU so that guest can benefit
> from the feature.
> 
> The main advantages of Arch LBR are [1]:
> - Faster context switching due to XSAVES support and faster reset of
>   LBR MSRs via the new DEPTH MSR
> - Faster LBR read for a non-PEBS event due to XSAVES support, which
>   lowers the overhead of the NMI handler.
> - Linux kernel can support the LBR features without knowing the model
>   number of the current CPU.
> 
> From end user's point of view, the usage of Arch LBR is the same as
> the Legacy LBR that has been merged in the mainline.
> 
> Note, in this series, there's one restriction for guest Arch LBR, i.e.,
> guest can only set its LBR record depth the same as host's. This is due
> to the special behavior of MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH: 
> 1) On write to the MSR, it'll reset all Arch LBR recording MSRs to 0s.
> 2) XRSTORS resets all record MSRs to 0s if the saved depth mismatches
> MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH.
> Enforcing the restriction keeps KVM Arch LBR vPMU working flow simple
> and straightforward.
> 
> Paolo refactored the old series and the resulting patches became the
> base of this new series, therefore he's the author of some patches.

To be very blunt, this series is a mess.  I don't want to point fingers as there
is plenty of blame to go around.  The existing LBR support is a confusing mess,
vPMU as a whole has been neglected for too long, review feedback has been relatively
non-existent, and I'm sure some of the mess is due to Paolo trying to hastily fix
things up back when this was temporarily queued.

However, for arch LBR support to be merged, things need to change.

First and foremost, the existing LBR support needs to be documented.  Someone,
I don't care who, needs to provide a detailed writeup of the contract between KVM
and perf.  Specifically, I want to know:

  1. When exactly is perf allowed to take control of LBR MRS.  Task switch?  IRQ?
     NMI?

  2. What is the expected behavior when perf is using LBRs?  Is the guest supposed
     to be traced?

  3. Why does KVM snapshot DEBUGCTL with IRQs enabled, but disables IRQs when
     accessing LBR MSRs?

It doesn't have to be polished, e.g. I'll happily wordsmith things into proper
documentation, but I want to have a very clear understanding of how LBR support
is _intended_ to function and how it all _actually_ functions without having to
make guesses.

And depending on the answers, I want to revisit KVM's LBR implementation before
tackling arch LBRs.  Letting perf usurp LBRs while KVM has the vCPU loaded is
frankly ridiculous.  Just have perf set a flag telling KVM that it needs to take
control of LBRs and have KVM service the flag as a request or something.  Stealing
the LBRs back in IRQ context adds a stupid amount of complexity without much value,
e.g. waiting a few branches for KVM to get to a safe place isn't going to meaningfully
change the traces.  If that can't actually happen, then why on earth does KVM need
to disable IRQs to read MSRs?

And AFAICT, since KVM unconditionally loads the guest's DEBUGCTL, whether or not
guest branches show up in the LBRs when the host is tracing is completely up to
the whims of the guest.  If that's correct, then again, what's the point of the
dance between KVM and perf?

Beyond the "how does this work" issues, there needs to be tests.  At the absolute
minimum, there needs to be selftests showing that this stuff actually works, that
save/restore (migration) works, that the MSRs can/can't be accessed when guest
CPUID is (in)correctly configured, etc. And I would really, really like to have
tests that force contention between host and guests, e.g. to make sure that KVM
isn't leaking host state or outright exploding, but I can understand that those
types of tests would be very difficult to write.

I've pushed a heavily reworked, but definitely broken, version to

  git@...hub.com:sean-jc/linux.git x86/arch_lbrs

It compiles, but it's otherwise untested and there are known gaps.  E.g. I omitted
toggling load+clear of ARCH_LBR_CTL because I couldn't figure out the intended
behavior.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists