| 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: <87pm3uovuy.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:56:37 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
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
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:52:40 +0100,
Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> 在 2023/8/11 15:42, Marc Zyngier 写道:
> > On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:10:26 +0100,
> > Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com> wrote:
> >> 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();
>
> xxxx.
>
>
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + 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.
> > But that's doing work each time you rotate an event. And if you rotate
> > a bunch of them, you'll hit this path multiple times, reloading the
> > stuff again. What's the point?
>
> In my code, I just put the kvm_make_request() in "xxx" above. Event
> reloading it multiple times,
>
> it just set a bit in vcpu->requests.
>
>
> >
> > My take is that we can hook at the point where the PMU gets
> > re-enabled, and have the full context once and for all.
> >
> > Unless of course I miss something, which is very likely as the whole
> > perf subsystem generally escapes me altogether.
> >
> > In any case, I'd welcome your testing the proposed patch.
>
> No problem.
As Oliver pointed out offline, I only have posted half of the patch...
Here is the whole thing below.
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/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu.c
index 121f1a14c829..7bd1facc8f15 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu.c
@@ -236,3 +236,17 @@ bool kvm_set_pmuserenr(u64 val)
ctxt_sys_reg(hctxt, PMUSERENR_EL0) = val;
return true;
}
+
+void kvm_resync_guest_context(void)
+{
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+
+ if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3() || !has_vhe())
+ return;
+
+ vcpu = kvm_get_running_vcpu();
+ if (!vcpu)
+ return;
+
+ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GUEST_PMU_EVENTS, 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();
}
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
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists