lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/pmu: Fix available_event_types check for REF_CPU_CYCLES event
From
On 1/5/22 06:15, Like Xu wrote:
> From: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
>
> According to CPUID 0x0A.EBX bit vector, the event [7] should be the
> unrealized event "Topdown Slots" instead of the *kernel* generalized
> common hardware event "REF_CPU_CYCLES", so we need to skip the cpuid
> unavaliblity check in the intel_pmc_perf_hw_id() for the last
> REF_CPU_CYCLES event and update the confusing comment.
>
> If the event is marked as unavailable in the Intel guest CPUID
> 0AH.EBX leaf, we need to avoid any perf_event creation, whether
> it's a gp or fixed counter. To distinguish whether it is a rejected
> event or an event that needs to be programmed with PERF_TYPE_RAW type,
> a new special returned value of "PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX + 1" is introduced.
>
> Fixes: 62079d8a43128 ("KVM: PMU: add proper support for fixed counter 2")
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2 Changelog:
> - Refine comment based on commit c1d6f42f1a42;
> - Squash the idea "avoid event creation for rejected hw_config" into this commit;
> - Squash the idea "PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX + 1" into this commit;
>
> Previous:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20211112095139.21775-3-likexu@tencent.com/
>
> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> index 8abdadb7e22a..e632693a2266 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,9 @@ static void pmc_reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u32 type,
> .config = config,
> };
>
> + if (type == PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE && config >= PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX)
> + return;
> +
> attr.sample_period = get_sample_period(pmc, pmc->counter);
>
> if (in_tx)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> index 5e0ac57d6d1b..ffccfd9823c0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> @@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
> #define MSR_PMC_FULL_WIDTH_BIT (MSR_IA32_PMC0 - MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0)
>
> static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping intel_arch_events[] = {
> - /* Index must match CPUID 0x0A.EBX bit vector */
> [0] = { 0x3c, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> [1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> [2] = { 0x3c, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES },
> @@ -29,6 +28,7 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping intel_arch_events[] = {
> [4] = { 0x2e, 0x41, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> [5] = { 0xc4, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> [6] = { 0xc5, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> + /* The above index must match CPUID 0x0A.EBX bit vector */
> [7] = { 0x00, 0x03, PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES },
> };
>
> @@ -75,11 +75,17 @@ static unsigned int intel_pmc_perf_hw_id(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> u8 unit_mask = (pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_UMASK) >> 8;
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(intel_arch_events); i++)
> - if (intel_arch_events[i].eventsel == event_select &&
> - intel_arch_events[i].unit_mask == unit_mask &&
> - (pmc_is_fixed(pmc) || pmu->available_event_types & (1 << i)))
> - break;
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(intel_arch_events); i++) {
> + if (intel_arch_events[i].eventsel != event_select ||
> + intel_arch_events[i].unit_mask != unit_mask)
> + continue;
> +
> + /* disable event that reported as not present by cpuid */
> + if ((i < 7) && !(pmu->available_event_types & (1 << i)))
> + return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX + 1;
> +
> + break;
> + }
>
> if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(intel_arch_events))
> return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;

Queued, thanks.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-07 17:49    [W:0.122 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site