Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 May 2024 15:34:25 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test | From | Shaoqin Huang <> |
| |
Hi Eric,
On 5/7/24 16:45, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi Shaoqin, > > On 4/9/24 05:03, Shaoqin Huang wrote: >> Introduce pmu_event_filter_test for arm64 platforms. The test configures >> PMUv3 for a vCPU, and sets different pmu event filters for the vCPU, and >> check if the guest can see those events which user allow and can't use >> those events which use deny. >> >> This test refactor the create_vpmu_vm() and make it a wrapper for >> __create_vpmu_vm(), which allows some extra init code before >> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT. >> >> And this test use the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER attribute to set the >> pmu event filter in KVM. And choose to filter two common event >> branches_retired and instructions_retired, and let the guest to check if >> it see the right pmceid register. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 + >> .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c | 298 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 299 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> index 741c7dc16afc..9745be534df3 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/aarch32_id_regs >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/debug-exceptions >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/hypercalls >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/page_fault_test >> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/psci_test >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/set_id_regs >> TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/smccc_filter >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..972384e81067 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,298 @@ >> + >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +/* >> + * pmu_event_filter_test - Test user limit pmu event for guest. >> + * >> + * Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc.> + * >> + * This test checks if the guest only see the limited pmu event that userspace> + * sets, if the guest can use those events which user allow, and if > the guest >> + * can't use those events which user deny. >> + * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER> + * is supported on the host. >> + */ >> +#include <kvm_util.h> >> +#include <processor.h> >> +#include <vgic.h> >> +#include <vpmu.h> >> +#include <test_util.h> >> +#include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h> >> + >> +struct pmu_common_event_ids { >> + uint64_t pmceid0; >> + uint64_t pmceid1; >> +} max_pmce, expected_pmce; >> + >> +struct vpmu_vm { >> + struct kvm_vm *vm; >> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; >> + int gic_fd; >> +}; >> + >> +static struct vpmu_vm vpmu_vm; >> + >> +#define FILTER_NR 10 >> + >> +struct test_desc { >> + const char *name; >> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter filter[FILTER_NR]; >> +}; >> + >> +#define __DEFINE_FILTER(base, num, act) \ >> + ((struct kvm_pmu_event_filter) { \ >> + .base_event = base, \ >> + .nevents = num, \ >> + .action = act, \ >> + }) >> + >> +#define DEFINE_FILTER(base, act) __DEFINE_FILTER(base, 1, act) >> + >> +static void guest_code(void) >> +{ >> + uint64_t pmceid0 = read_sysreg(pmceid0_el0); >> + uint64_t pmceid1 = read_sysreg(pmceid1_el0); >> + >> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(expected_pmce.pmceid0, pmceid0); >> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(expected_pmce.pmceid1, pmceid1); >> + >> + GUEST_DONE(); >> +} >> + >> +static void guest_get_pmceid(void) >> +{ >> + max_pmce.pmceid0 = read_sysreg(pmceid0_el0); >> + max_pmce.pmceid1 = read_sysreg(pmceid1_el0); >> + >> + GUEST_DONE(); >> +} >> + >> +static void run_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> +{ >> + struct ucall uc; >> + >> + while (1) { >> + vcpu_run(vcpu); >> + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { >> + case UCALL_DONE: >> + return; >> + case UCALL_ABORT: >> + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc); >> + break; >> + default: >> + TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd); >> + } >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static void set_pmce(struct pmu_common_event_ids *pmce, int action, int event) >> +{ >> + int base = 0; >> + uint64_t *pmceid = NULL; >> + >> + if (event >= 0x4000) { >> + event -= 0x4000; >> + base = 32; >> + } >> + >> + if (event >= 0 && event <= 0x1F) { >> + pmceid = &pmce->pmceid0; >> + } else if (event >= 0x20 && event <= 0x3F) { >> + event -= 0x20; >> + pmceid = &pmce->pmceid1; >> + } else { >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + event += base; >> + if (action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW) >> + *pmceid |= BIT(event); >> + else >> + *pmceid &= ~BIT(event); >> +} >> + >> +static void prepare_expected_pmce(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter) >> +{ >> + struct pmu_common_event_ids pmce_mask = { ~0, ~0 }; >> + bool first_filter = true; >> + int i; >> + >> + while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) { >> + if (first_filter) { >> + if (filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW) >> + memset(&pmce_mask, 0, sizeof(pmce_mask)); >> + first_filter = false; >> + } >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < filter->nevents; i++) >> + set_pmce(&pmce_mask, filter->action, >> + filter->base_event + i); >> + >> + filter++; >> + } >> + >> + expected_pmce.pmceid0 = max_pmce.pmceid0 & pmce_mask.pmceid0; >> + expected_pmce.pmceid1 = max_pmce.pmceid1 & pmce_mask.pmceid1; >> +} >> + >> +static void pmu_event_filter_init(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter) >> +{ >> + while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) { >> + kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, >> + KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, >> + KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, >> + filter); >> + filter++; >> + } >> +} >> + >> +#define GICD_BASE_GPA 0x8000000ULL >> +#define GICR_BASE_GPA 0x80A0000ULL > in v4 Oliver suggested "Shouldn't a standardized layout of the GIC > frames go with the rest of the GIC stuff?" >
Oliver replied there is another commits did that, so I will remove them when I update it.
>> + >> +/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ >> +static void create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(void *guest_code, >> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter) >> +{ >> + uint64_t irq = 23; >> + >> + /* The test creates the vpmu_vm multiple times. Ensure a clean state */ >> + memset(&vpmu_vm, 0, sizeof(vpmu_vm)); >> + >> + vpmu_vm.vm = vm_create(1); >> + vpmu_vm.vcpu = vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, guest_code); >> + vpmu_vm.gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm.vm, 1, 64, >> + GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA); >> + __TEST_REQUIRE(vpmu_vm.gic_fd >= 0, >> + "Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping"); >> + >> + pmu_event_filter_init(filter); >> + >> + /* Initialize vPMU */ >> + vpmu_set_irq(vpmu_vm.vcpu, irq); >> + vpmu_init(vpmu_vm.vcpu); >> +} >> + >> +static void create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) >> +{ >> + create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(guest_code, NULL); >> +} >> + >> +static void destroy_vpmu_vm(void) >> +{ >> + close(vpmu_vm.gic_fd); >> + kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm.vm); >> +} >> + >> +static void run_test(struct test_desc *t) >> +{ >> + pr_info("Test: %s\n", t->name); >> + >> + create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(guest_code, t->filter); >> + prepare_expected_pmce(t->filter); >> + sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, expected_pmce); >> + >> + run_vcpu(vpmu_vm.vcpu); >> + >> + destroy_vpmu_vm(); >> +} >> + >> +static struct test_desc tests[] = { >> + { >> + .name = "without_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + { 0 } >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "member_allow_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 0), >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED, 0), >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED, 0), >> + { 0 }, >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "member_deny_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 1), >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED, 1), >> + DEFINE_FILTERShouldn't a standardized layout of the GIC frames go with the rest of > the GIC stuff?(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED, 1), >> + { 0 }, >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "not_member_deny_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 1), >> + { 0 }, >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "not_member_allow_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 0), >> + { 0 }, >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "deny_chain_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN, 1), >> + { 0 }, >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "deny_cpu_cycles_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 1), >> + { 0 }, >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "cancel_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 0), >> + DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 1), >> + }, >> + }, >> + { >> + .name = "multiple_filter", >> + .filter = { >> + __DEFINE_FILTER(0x0, 0x10, 0), >> + __DEFINE_FILTER(0x6, 0x3, 1), >> + }, >> + }, >> + { 0 } >> +}; >> + >> +static void run_tests(void) >> +{ >> + struct test_desc *t; >> + >> + for (t = &tests[0]; t->name; t++) >> + run_test(t); >> +} >> + >> +static bool kvm_pmu_support_events(void) >> +{ >> + create_vpmu_vm(guest_get_pmceid); >> + >> + memset(&max_pmce, 0, sizeof(max_pmce)); >> + sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce); >> + run_vcpu(vpmu_vm.vcpu); >> + sync_global_from_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce); >> + destroy_vpmu_vm(); >> + >> + return max_pmce.pmceid0 & >> + (ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED | >> + ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED | >> + ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN); > those are not bit masks but bit shifts. Also don't you want to test that > all of them are supported?
Thanks for catching this bug. Yes I want to test all of them are supported but wrongly checking the bit masks. I will fix them.
> > BR_RETIRED is 0x21 so doesn't it belong to pmceid1?
Yes, it should belong to pmceid1. But my wrong checking didn't help me find it. Thanks a lot.
> > > in v4 Oliver suggested to use sysfs instead of spawning a scratch VM.
In that version I changed to function name to kvm_pmu_support_events, which means I want to detect what the KVM supports about the PMU events rather than the host supportted PMU events. I think that would be more suitable if we test KVM.
Thanks, Shaoqin
>> +} >> + >> +int main(void) >> +{ >> + TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3)); >> + TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events()); >> + >> + run_tests(); >> +} > Eric >
-- Shaoqin
| |