lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/6] KVM: x86: Update vPMCs when retiring instructions
On 9/12/2021 12:33 pm, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:42 PM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
>>
>> When KVM retires a guest instruction through emulation, increment any
>> vPMCs that are configured to monitor "instructions retired," and
>> update the sample period of those counters so that they will overflow
>> at the right time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Hankland <ehankland@google.com>
>> [jmattson:
>> - Split the code to increment "branch instructions retired" into a
>> separate commit.
>> - Added 'static' to kvm_pmu_incr_counter() definition.
>> - Modified kvm_pmu_incr_counter() to check pmc->perf_event->state ==
>> PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE.
>> ]
>> Fixes: f5132b01386b ("KVM: Expose a version 2 architectural PMU to a guests")
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
>> [likexu:
>> - Drop checks for pmc->perf_event or event state or event type
>> - Increase a counter once its umask bits and the first 8 select bits are matched
>> - Rewrite kvm_pmu_incr_counter() with a less invasive approach to the host perf;
>> - Rename kvm_pmu_record_event to kvm_pmu_trigger_event;
>> - Add counter enable and CPL check for kvm_pmu_trigger_event();
>> ]
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
>> ---
>
>> +void kvm_pmu_trigger_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 perf_hw_id)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
>> + struct kvm_pmc *pmc;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(i, pmu->all_valid_pmc_idx, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
>> + pmc = kvm_x86_ops.pmu_ops->pmc_idx_to_pmc(pmu, i);
>> +
>> + if (!pmc || !pmc_is_enabled(pmc) || !pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /* Ignore checks for edge detect, pin control, invert and CMASK bits */
>
> I don't understand how we can ignore these checks. Doesn't that
> violate the architectural specification?

OK, let's take a conservative approach in the V3.

>
>> + if (eventsel_match_perf_hw_id(pmc, perf_hw_id) && cpl_is_matched(pmc))
>> + kvm_pmu_incr_counter(pmc);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_pmu_trigger_event);
>> +
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-09 09:46    [W:0.175 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site