| 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: <fb7b3ebd-4731-4de7-7c39-ac4b0b0b2bfa@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:10:26 +0800
From: Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com>,
oliver.upton@...ux.dev, james.morse@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...erecomputing.com,
zwang@...erecomputing.com, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM/arm64: reconfigurate the event filters for guest
context
Hi Marc,
在 2023/8/11 14:10, Marc Zyngier 写道:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:46:49 +0100,
> Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com> wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> 在 2023/8/10 23:27, Marc Zyngier 写道:
>>> Huang,
>>>
>>> Please make sure you add everyone who commented on v1 (I've Cc'd Mark
>>> so that he can shime need as needed).
>> thanks.
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 08:29:06 +0100,
>>> Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>>>> 1.) Background.
>>>> 1.1) In arm64, start a guest with Qemu which is running as a VMM of KVM,
>>>> and bind the guest to core 33 and run program "a" in guest.
>>>> The code of "a" shows below:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> unsigned long i = 0;
>>>>
>>>> for (;;) {
>>>> i++;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> printf("i:%ld\n", i);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 1.2) Use the following perf command in host:
>>>> #perf stat -e cycles:G,cycles:H -C 33 -I 1000 sleep 1
>>>> # time counts unit events
>>>> 1.000817400 3,299,471,572 cycles:G
>>>> 1.000817400 3,240,586 cycles:H
>>>>
>>>> This result is correct, my cpu's frequency is 3.3G.
>>>>
>>>> 1.3) Use the following perf command in host:
>>>> #perf stat -e cycles:G,cycles:H -C 33 -d -d -I 1000 sleep 1
>>>> time counts unit events
>>>> 1.000831480 153,634,097 cycles:G (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 3,147,940,599 cycles:H (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 1,143,598,527 L1-dcache-loads (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 9,986 L1-dcache-load-misses # 0.00% of all L1-dcache accesses (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 <not supported> LLC-loads
>>>> 1.000831480 <not supported> LLC-load-misses
>>>> 1.000831480 580,887,696 L1-icache-loads (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 77,855 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.01% of all L1-icache accesses (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 6,112,224,612 dTLB-loads (70.03%)
>>>> 1.000831480 16,222 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache accesses (69.94%)
>>>> 1.000831480 590,015,996 iTLB-loads (59.95%)
>>>> 1.000831480 505 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache accesses (59.95%)
>>>>
>>>> This result is wrong. The "cycle:G" should be nearly 3.3G.
>>>>
>>>> 2.) Root cause.
>>>> There is only 7 counters in my arm64 platform:
>>>> (one cycle counter) + (6 normal counters)
>>>>
>>>> In 1.3 above, we will use 10 event counters.
>>>> Since we only have 7 counters, the perf core will trigger
>>>> multiplexing in hrtimer:
>>>> perf_mux_hrtimer_restart() --> perf_rotate_context().
>>>>
>>>> If the hrtimer occurs when the host is running, it's fine.
>>>> If the hrtimer occurs when the guest is running,
>>>> the perf_rotate_context() will program the PMU with filters for
>>>> host context. The KVM does not have a chance to restore
>>>> PMU registers with kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest().
>>>> The PMU does not work correctly, so we got wrong result.
>>>>
>>>> 3.) About this patch.
>>>> Make a KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU request before reentering the
>>>> guest. The request will call kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest()
>>>> to reconfigurate the filters for guest context.
>>>>
>>>> 4.) Test result of this patch:
>>>> #perf stat -e cycles:G,cycles:H -C 33 -d -d -I 1000 sleep 1
>>>> time counts unit events
>>>> 1.001006400 3,298,348,656 cycles:G (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 3,144,532 cycles:H (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 941,149 L1-dcache-loads (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 17,937 L1-dcache-load-misses # 1.91% of all L1-dcache accesses (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 <not supported> LLC-loads
>>>> 1.001006400 <not supported> LLC-load-misses
>>>> 1.001006400 1,101,889 L1-icache-loads (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 121,638 L1-icache-load-misses # 11.04% of all L1-icache accesses (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 1,031,228 dTLB-loads (70.03%)
>>>> 1.001006400 26,952 dTLB-load-misses # 2.61% of all dTLB cache accesses (69.93%)
>>>> 1.001006400 1,030,678 iTLB-loads (59.94%)
>>>> 1.001006400 338 iTLB-load-misses # 0.03% of all iTLB cache accesses (59.94%)
>>>>
>>>> The result is correct. The "cycle:G" is nearly 3.3G now.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v1 --> v2:
>>>> Do not change perf/core code, only change the ARM64 kvm code.
>>>> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/8/8/1465
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> index c2c14059f6a8..475a2f0e0e40 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> @@ -919,8 +919,17 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> if (!ret)
>>>> ret = 1;
>>>> - if (ret > 0)
>>>> + if (ret > 0) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The perf_rotate_context() may rotate the events and
>>>> + * reprogram PMU with filters for host context.
>>>> + * So make a request before reentering the guest to
>>>> + * reconfigurate the event filters for guest context.
>>>> + */
>>>> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU, vcpu);
>>>> +
>>>> ret = check_vcpu_requests(vcpu);
>>>> + }
>>> This looks extremely heavy handed. You're performing the reload on
>>> *every* entry, and I don't think this is right (exit-heavy workloads
>>> will suffer from it)
>>>
>>> Furthermore, you're also reloading the virtual state of the PMU
>>> (recreating guest events and other things), all of which looks pretty
>>> pointless, as all we're interested in is what is being counted on the
>>> *host*.
>> okay. What about to add a _new_ request, such as KVM_REQ_RESTROE_PMU_GUEST?
>>
>>
>>> Instead, we can restrict the reload of the host state (and only that)
>>> to situations where:
>>>
>>> - we're running on a VHE system
>>>
>>> - we have a host PMUv3 (not everybody does), as that's the only way we
>>> can profile a guest
>> okay. No problem.
>>
>>
>>> and ideally we would have a way to detect that a rotation happened
>>> (which may requires some help from the low-level PMU code).
>> I will check it, hope we can find a better way.
> I came up with the following patch, completely untested. Let me know
> how that fares for you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 93c541111dea..fb875c5c0347 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
> #define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GICv4 KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
> #define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU KVM_ARCH_REQ(5)
> #define KVM_REQ_SUSPEND KVM_ARCH_REQ(6)
> +#define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GUEST_PMU_EVENTS KVM_ARCH_REQ(7)
>
> #define KVM_DIRTY_LOG_MANUAL_CAPS (KVM_DIRTY_LOG_MANUAL_PROTECT_ENABLE | \
> KVM_DIRTY_LOG_INITIALLY_SET)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index 8b51570a76f8..b40db24f1f0b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -804,6 +804,9 @@ static int check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(vcpu,
> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0));
>
> + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GUEST_PMU_EVENTS, vcpu))
> + kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(vcpu);
> +
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_SUSPEND, vcpu))
> return kvm_vcpu_suspend(vcpu);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
> index 08b3a1bf0ef6..7012de417092 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
> @@ -772,6 +772,9 @@ static void armv8pmu_start(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>
> /* Enable all counters */
> armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E);
> +
> + if (in_interrupt())
> + kvm_resync_guest_context();
I currently added a similiar check in armv8pmu_get_event_idx().
The event multiplexing will call armv8pmu_get_event_idx(), and will
definitely fail at least one time.
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
@@ -882,6 +882,8 @@ static int armv8pmu_get_event_idx(struct
pmu_hw_events *cpuc,
struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu);
struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
unsigned long evtype = hwc->config_base & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+ int index;
struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu);
struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
unsigned long evtype = hwc->config_base & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+ int index;
/* Always prefer to place a cycle counter into the cycle
counter. */
if (evtype == ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES) {
@@ -897,9 +899,22 @@ static int armv8pmu_get_event_idx(struct
pmu_hw_events *cpuc,
* Otherwise use events counters
*/
if (armv8pmu_event_is_chained(event))
- return armv8pmu_get_chain_idx(cpuc, cpu_pmu);
+ index = armv8pmu_get_chain_idx(cpuc, cpu_pmu);
else
- return armv8pmu_get_single_idx(cpuc, cpu_pmu);
+ index = armv8pmu_get_single_idx(cpuc, cpu_pmu);
+
+ /*
+ * If we are in pmu multiplexing, we will definitely meet a failure.
+ * Please see perf_rotate_context().
+ * If we are in the guest context, we can mark it.
+ */
+ if (index < 0) {
+ vcpu = kvm_get_running_vcpu();
+ if (vcpu && in_interrupt() && !event->attr.pinned) {
+ kvm_resync_guest_context();
+ }
+ }
+ return index;
}
IMHO, it's better to change armv8pmu_get_event_idx().
But if you think it is also okay to change armv8pmu_start() to fix the bug,
I am okay too.
Thanks
Huang Shijie
> }
>
> static void armv8pmu_stop(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> index 847da6fc2713..d66f7216b5a9 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> struct kvm_pmu_events *kvm_get_pmu_events(void);
> void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +void kvm_resync_guest_context(void);
>
> #define kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) \
> (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3, (vcpu)->arch.features))
> @@ -171,6 +172,7 @@ static inline u8 kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit(void)
> {
> return 0;
> }
> +static inline void kvm_resync_guest_context(void) {}
>
> #endif
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists