[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <499e600b-147e-4b8c-9133-80f3f8e87742@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:59:46 +0800
From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>, Zhang Xiong
<xiong.y.zhang@...el.com>, Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 08/11] x86: pmu: Improve instruction and
branches events verification
On 3/27/2024 2:14 PM, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>> If HW supports GLOBAL_CTRL MSR, enabling and disabling PMCs are moved in
>> __precise_count_loop(). Thus, instructions and branches events can be
>> verified against a precise count instead of a rough range.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> x86/pmu.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
>> index 88b89ad889b9..b764827c1c3d 100644
>> --- a/x86/pmu.c
>> +++ b/x86/pmu.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@
>> "nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop;\n\t" \
>> "loop 1b;\n\t"
>>
>> +/*Enable GLOBAL_CTRL + disable GLOBAL_CTRL instructions */
>> +#define PRECISE_EXTRA_INSTRNS (2 + 4)
>> +#define PRECISE_LOOP_INSTRNS (N * LOOP_INSTRNS + PRECISE_EXTRA_INSTRNS)
>> +#define PRECISE_LOOP_BRANCHES (N)
>> #define PRECISE_LOOP_ASM \
>> "wrmsr;\n\t" \
>> "mov %%ecx, %%edi; mov %%ebx, %%ecx;\n\t" \
>> @@ -107,6 +111,24 @@ static inline void loop(u64 cntrs)
>> __precise_count_loop(cntrs);
>> }
>>
>> +static void adjust_events_range(struct pmu_event *gp_events, int branch_idx)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * If HW supports GLOBAL_CTRL MSR, enabling and disabling PMCs are
>> + * moved in __precise_count_loop(). Thus, instructions and branches
>> + * events can be verified against a precise count instead of a rough
>> + * range.
>> + */
>> + if (this_cpu_has_perf_global_ctrl()) {
>> + /* instructions event */
>> + gp_events[0].min = PRECISE_LOOP_INSTRNS;
>> + gp_events[0].max = PRECISE_LOOP_INSTRNS;
>> + /* branches event */
>> + gp_events[branch_idx].min = PRECISE_LOOP_BRANCHES;
>> + gp_events[branch_idx].max = PRECISE_LOOP_BRANCHES;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> volatile uint64_t irq_received;
>>
>> static void cnt_overflow(isr_regs_t *regs)
>> @@ -771,6 +793,7 @@ static void check_invalid_rdpmc_gp(void)
>>
>> int main(int ac, char **av)
>> {
>> + int branch_idx;
>> setup_vm();
>> handle_irq(PMI_VECTOR, cnt_overflow);
>> buf = malloc(N*64);
>> @@ -784,13 +807,16 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>> }
>> gp_events = (struct pmu_event *)intel_gp_events;
>> gp_events_size = sizeof(intel_gp_events)/sizeof(intel_gp_events[0]);
>> + branch_idx = 5;
> This (and the follow up one) hardcoded index is hacky and more
> importantly, error prone especially when code get refactored later.
> Please use a proper way via macro? Eg., checking
> INTEL_ARCH_BRANCHES_RETIRED_INDEX in pmu_counters_test.c might be a good
> one.
Yeah, I would define an enum to enumerate these indexes. Thanks.
>> report_prefix_push("Intel");
>> set_ref_cycle_expectations();
>> } else {
>> gp_events_size = sizeof(amd_gp_events)/sizeof(amd_gp_events[0]);
>> gp_events = (struct pmu_event *)amd_gp_events;
>> + branch_idx = 2;
>> report_prefix_push("AMD");
>> }
>> + adjust_events_range(gp_events, branch_idx);
>>
>> printf("PMU version: %d\n", pmu.version);
>> printf("GP counters: %d\n", pmu.nr_gp_counters);
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists