| 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: <CAEf4BzZhHw7NKyoLK9LbiOiW_H1VPfzy0EF5mXKL0SMkxq+H8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 21:10:23 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, song@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf/x86/amd: support capturing LBR from software events
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 4:07 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > [0] added ability to capture LBR (Last Branch Records) on Intel CPUs
> > from inside BPF program at pretty much any arbitrary point.
>
> Upstream commit ID:
>
> c22ac2a3d4bd ("perf: Enable branch record for software events")
will include this in commit message
>
> > [...] This is extremely useful capability that allows to figure out
> > otherwise hard-to-debug problems, because LBR is now available based
> > on some application-defined conditions, not just hardware-supported
> > events.
> >
> > retsnoop ([1]) is one such tool that takes a huge advantage of this
> > functionality and has proved to be an extremely useful tool in
> > practice.
> >
> > Now, AMD Zen4 CPUs got support for similar LBR functionality, but
> > necessary wiring inside the kernel is not yet setup. This patch seeks to
> > rectify this and follows a similar approach to the original patch [0]
> > for Intel CPUs.
> >
> > Given LBR can be set up to capture any indirect jumps, it's critical to
> > minimize indirect jumps on the way to requesting LBR from BPF program,
> > so we split amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all() into a wrapper with some generic
> > conditions vs always-inlined __amd_pmu_lbr_disable() called directly
> > from BPF subsystem (through perf_snapshot_branch_stack static call).
> >
> > This was tested on AMD Bergamo CPU and worked well when utilized from
> > the aforementioned retsnoop tool.
> >
> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210910183352.3151445-2-songliubraving@fb.com/
> > [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/events/amd/core.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c | 7 +------
> > arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
> > index aec16e581f5b..88f6d0701342 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
> > @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void amd_pmu_cpu_dead(int cpu)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void amd_pmu_set_global_ctl(u64 ctl)
> > +static __always_inline void amd_pmu_set_global_ctl(u64 ctl)
>
> What is this inlining change about? My first guess was that it's to
> generate better code, but my guess was wrong: it's to avoid branches.
> To not force people to guess, please put it into a separate patch & add
> an explanation.
ok, will do
>
> > {
> > wrmsrl(MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_CTL, ctl);
> > }
> > @@ -878,6 +878,29 @@ static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > return amd_pmu_adjust_nmi_window(handled);
> > }
> >
> > +static int amd_pmu_v2_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_entry *entries, unsigned int cnt)
> > +{
> > + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + /* must not have branches... */
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + amd_pmu_core_disable_all();
> > + __amd_pmu_lbr_disable();
> > + /* ... until here */
>
> Oh ... so it's not about performance or code layout, but to avoid new
> branches to contaminate the snapshot, right? Even stronger reason to
> put that change into a separate patch.
>
yep
> > +
> > + cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> > +
> > + amd_pmu_lbr_read();
> > + cnt = min_t(unsigned int, cnt, x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
>
> Why is min_t() used here? AFAICT all types here are 'unsigned int'.
you are right, seems like it's all unsigned int, so I will drop min_t.
Not sure why the original Intel implementation used min_t().
>
> > + memcpy(entries, cpuc->lbr_entries, sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry) * cnt);
>
> The function could use a description comment explaining the arguments,
> and that the caller must make sure there's enough space in the
> 'entries' array.
>
There is a comment next to perf_snapshot_branch_stack static call
definition in include/linux/perf_event.h. I'll include a comment that
amd_pmu_v2_snapshot_branch_stack() is an AMD-specific "implementation"
of that static call, so user can refer to it for documentation (which
would be kept in one place this way, instead of copy/pasting it
between Intel and AMD implementations).
> > +
> > + amd_pmu_v2_enable_all(0);
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +
> > + return cnt;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int amd_pmu_v2_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> > @@ -1414,6 +1437,10 @@ static int __init amd_core_pmu_init(void)
> > static_call_update(amd_pmu_branch_reset, amd_pmu_lbr_reset);
> > static_call_update(amd_pmu_branch_add, amd_pmu_lbr_add);
> > static_call_update(amd_pmu_branch_del, amd_pmu_lbr_del);
> > +
> > + /* only support branch_stack snapshot on perfmon v2 */
> > + if (x86_pmu.handle_irq == amd_pmu_v2_handle_irq)
> > + static_call_update(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, amd_pmu_v2_snapshot_branch_stack);
>
> > } else if (!amd_brs_init()) {
> > /*
> > * BRS requires special event constraints and flushing on ctxsw.
>
> Please use consistent capitalization in all new comments you add:
>
> /* Properly capitalized comment */
>
ack
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> > index 4a1e600314d5..0e4de028590d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> > @@ -412,16 +412,11 @@ void amd_pmu_lbr_enable_all(void)
> > void amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all(void)
> > {
> > struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> > - u64 dbg_ctl, dbg_extn_cfg;
> >
> > if (!cpuc->lbr_users || !x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
> > return;
> >
> > - rdmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg);
> > - rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl);
> > -
> > - wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg & ~DBG_EXTN_CFG_LBRV2EN);
> > - wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl & ~DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI);
> > + __amd_pmu_lbr_disable();
> > }
> >
> > __init int amd_pmu_lbr_init(void)
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> > index fb56518356ec..4dddf0a7e81e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> > @@ -1329,6 +1329,17 @@ void amd_pmu_lbr_enable_all(void);
> > void amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all(void);
> > int amd_pmu_lbr_hw_config(struct perf_event *event);
> >
> > +static __always_inline void __amd_pmu_lbr_disable(void)
> > +{
> > + u64 dbg_ctl, dbg_extn_cfg;
> > +
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg);
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl);
> > +
> > + wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg & ~DBG_EXTN_CFG_LBRV2EN);
> > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl & ~DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI);
> > +}
> > +
>
> This factoring out of __amd_pmu_lbr_disable() should be in a separate
> preparatory patch too.
>
ok
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists