linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 23/41] KVM: x86/pmu: Implement the save/restore of PMU state for Intel CPU

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f843298c-db08-4fde-9887-13de18d960ac@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:18:37 +0800
From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>, maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
 Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@...ux.intel.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, kan.liang@...el.com, zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com,
 jmattson@...gle.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhiyuan.lv@...el.com, eranian@...gle.com,
 irogers@...gle.com, samantha.alt@...el.com, like.xu.linux@...il.com,
 chao.gao@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 23/41] KVM: x86/pmu: Implement the save/restore of PMU
 state for Intel CPU


On 4/24/2024 1:02 AM, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
>>> Maybe, (just maybe), it is possible to do PMU context switch at vcpu
>>> boundary normally, but doing it at VM Enter/Exit boundary when host is
>>> profiling KVM kernel module. So, dynamically adjusting PMU context
>>> switch location could be an option.
>> If there are two VMs with pmu enabled both, however host PMU is not
>> enabled. PMU context switch should be done in vcpu thread sched-out path.
>>
>> If host pmu is used also, we can choose whether PMU switch should be
>> done in vm exit path or vcpu thread sched-out path.
>>
> host PMU is always enabled, ie., Linux currently does not support KVM
> PMU running standalone. I guess what you mean is there are no active
> perf_events on the host side. Allowing a PMU context switch drifting
> from vm-enter/exit boundary to vcpu loop boundary by checking host
> side events might be a good option. We can keep the discussion, but I
> won't propose that in v2.

I suspect if it's really doable to do this deferring. This still makes 
host lose the most of capability to profile KVM. Per my understanding, 
most of KVM overhead happens in the vcpu loop, exactly speaking in 
VM-exit handling. We have no idea when host want to create perf event to 
profile KVM, it could be at any time.


>
> I guess we are off topic. Sean's suggestion is that we should put
> "perf" and "kvm" together while doing the context switch. I think this
> is quite reasonable regardless of the PMU context switch location.
>
> To execute this, I am thinking about adding a parameter or return
> value to perf_guest_enter() so that once it returns back to KVM, KVM
> gets to know which counters are active/inactive/cleared from the host
> side. Knowing that, KVM can do the context switch more efficiently.
>
> Thanks.
> -Mingwei
>