Message-ID: <0fe14e54-4ab3-75da-4bdc-561fe1461071@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Oct 2021 17:03:46 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "like.xu@...ux.intel.com" <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: bpf_get_branch_snapshot on qemu-kvm

On 9/10/2021 1:08 am, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:36 PM, Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/10/2021 1:46 pm, Song Liu wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 8:34 PM, Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 30/9/2021 4:05 am, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kan,
>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2021, at 9:35 AM, Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...el.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - get confirmation that clearing GLOBAL_CTRL is suffient to supress
>>>>>>>>>   PEBS, in which case we can simply remove the PEBS_ENABLE clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How should we confirm this? Can we run some tests for this? Or do we
>>>>>>>> need hardware experts' input for this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll put it on the list to ask the hardware people when I talk to them next. But
>>>>>>> maybe Kan or Andi know without asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the GLOBAL_CTRL is explicitly disabled, the counters do not count anymore.
>>>>>> It doesn't matter if PEBS is enabled or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See 6c1c07b33eb0 ("perf/x86/intel: Avoid unnecessary PEBS_ENABLE MSR
>>>>>> access in PMI "). We optimized the PMU handler base on it.
>>>>> Thanks for these information!
>>>>> IIUC, all we need is the following on top of bpf-next/master:
>>>>> diff --git i/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c w/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>>>> index 1248fc1937f82..d0d357e7d6f21 100644
>>>>> --- i/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>>>> +++ w/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>>>> @@ -2209,7 +2209,6 @@ intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_entry *entries, unsigned int
>>>>>          /* must not have branches... */
>>>>>          local_irq_save(flags);
>>>>>          __intel_pmu_disable_all(false); /* we don't care about BTS */
>>>>
>>>> If the value passed in is true, does it affect your use case?
>>>>
>>>>> -       __intel_pmu_pebs_disable_all();
>>>>
>>>> In that case, we can reuse "static __always_inline void intel_pmu_disable_all(void)"
>>>> regardless of whether PEBS is supported or enabled inside the guest and the host ?
>>>>
>>>>>          __intel_pmu_lbr_disable();
>>>>
>>>> How about using intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all() to cover Arch LBR?
>>> We are using LBR without PMI, so there isn't any hardware mechanism to
>>> stop the LBR, we have to stop it in software. There is always a delay
>>> between the event triggers and the LBR is stopped. In this window,
>>
>> Do you use counters for snapshot branch stack?
>>
>> Can the assumption of "without PMI" be broken sine Intel does have
>> the hardware mechanism like "freeze LBR on counter overflow
>> (aka, DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI)" ?
> 
> We are capturing LBR on software events. For example, when a complex syscall,
> such as sys_bpf() and sys_perf_event_open(), returns -EINVAL, it is not obvious
> what wen wrong. The branch stack at the return (on a kretprobe or fexit) could
> give us additional information.
> 
>>
>>> the LBR is still running and old entries are being replaced by new entries.
>>> We actually need the old entries before the triggering event, so the key
>>> design goal here is to minimize the number of branch instructions between
>>> the event triggers and the LBR is stopped.
>>
>> Yes, it makes sense.
>>
>>> Here, both __intel_pmu_disable_all(false) and __intel_pmu_lbr_disable()
>>> are used to optimize for this goal: the fewer branch instructions the
>>> better.
>>
>> Is it possible that we have another LBR in-kernel user in addition to the current
>> BPF-LBR snapshot user, such as another BPF-LBR snapshot user or a LBR perf user ?
> 
> I think it is OK to have another user. We just need to capture the LBR entries.
> In fact, we simply enable LBR by opening a perf_event on each CPU. So from the
> kernel's point of view, the LBR is owned used by "another user".
> 
>>
>> In the intel_pmu_snapshot_[arch]_branch_stack(), what if there is a PMI or NMI handler
>> to be called before __intel_pmu_lbr_disable(), which means more branch instructions
>> (assuming we don't use the FREEZE_LBRS_ON_xxx capability)?
> 
> If we are unlucky and hit an NMI, we may get garbage data. The user will run the
> test again.
> 
>> How about try to disable LBR at the earliest possible time, before __intel_pmu_disable_all(false) ?
> 
> I am not sure which solution is the best here. On bare metal, current version works
> fine (available in bpf-next tree).
> 
>>
>>> After removing __intel_pmu_pebs_disable_all() from
>>> intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(), we found quite a few LBR entries in
>>> extable related code. With these entries, snapshot branch stack is not
>>
>> Are you saying that you still need to call
>> __intel_pmu_pebs_disable_all() to maintain precision ?
> 
> I think we don't need pebs_disable_all. In the VM, pebs_disable_all will trigger
> "unchecked MSR access error" warning. After removing it, the warning message is
> gone. However, after we remove pebs_disable_all, we still see too many LBR entries
> are flushed before LBR is stopped. Most of these new entries are in extable code.
> I guess this is because the VM access these MSR differently.

Hi Song,

Thanks for your detailed input. I saw your workaround "if (is_hypervisor())" on 
the tree.

Even when the guest supports PEBS, this use case fails and the root cause is still
playing hide-and-seek with me. Just check with you to see if you get similar results
when the guest LBR behavior makes the test case fail like this:

serial_test_get_branch_snapshot:FAIL:find_looptest_in_lbr unexpected 
find_looptest_in_lbr: actual 0 <= expected 6
serial_test_get_branch_snapshot:FAIL:check_wasted_entries unexpected 
check_wasted_entries: actual 32 >= expected 10
#52 get_branch_snapshot:FAIL

Also, do you know or rough guess about how extable code relates to the test case ?

> 
> Thanks,
> Song
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists