Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:58:34 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test | From | Shaoqin Huang <> |
| |
Hi Eric,
On 11/27/23 16:10, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi Shaoqin, > > On 11/23/23 07:37, Shaoqin Huang wrote: >> Introduce pmu_event_filter_test for arm64 platforms. The test configures >> PMUv3 for a vCPU, and sets different pmu event filter for the vCPU, and > filters >> check if the guest can use 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 can let we do some extra init before > which can let we do -> which allows some extra init code.
Copy that.
>> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT. >> >> This test choose the branches_retired and the instructions_retired >> event, and let guest use the two events in pmu. And check if the result > Are you sure those events are supported? >> is expected. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 + >> .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c | 227 ++++++++++++++++++ >> .../selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h | 4 + >> .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c | 14 +- >> 4 files changed, 244 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> 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 b60852c222ac..5f126e1a1dbf 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/arch_timer >> 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..a876f5c2033b >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@ >> +// 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 > sees >> + * sets, if the gust can use those events which user allow, and if the guest > s/gust/guest
Thanks, will correct it.
>> + * can't use those events which user deny. >> + * It also checks set invalid filter return the expected error. > it also checks that setting invalid filter ranges ... >> + * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 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 { >> + uint64_t branches_retired; >> + uint64_t instructions_retired; >> +} pmc_results; >> + >> +static struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; >> + >> +#define FILTER_NR 10 >> + >> +struct test_desc { >> + const char *name; >> + void (*check_result)(void); >> + 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) >> + >> +#define EMPTY_FILTER { 0 } >> + >> +#define SW_INCR 0x0 >> +#define INST_RETIRED 0x8 >> +#define BR_RETIERD 0x21 > looks like a typo
It's a typo error. Fixed it.
>> + >> +#define NUM_BRANCHES 10 >> + >> +static void run_and_measure_loop(void) >> +{ >> + asm volatile( >> + " mov x10, %[loop]\n" >> + "1: sub x10, x10, #1\n" >> + " cmp x10, #0x0\n" >> + " b.gt 1b\n" >> + : >> + : [loop] "r" (NUM_BRANCHES) >> + : "x10", "cc"); >> +} >> + >> +static void guest_code(void) >> +{ >> + uint64_t pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0); >> + >> + pmu_disable_reset(); >> + >> + write_pmevtypern(0, BR_RETIERD); >> + write_pmevtypern(1, INST_RETIRED); >> + enable_counter(0); >> + enable_counter(1); >> + write_sysreg(pmcr | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E, pmcr_el0); >> + >> + run_and_measure_loop(); >> + >> + write_sysreg(pmcr, pmcr_el0); >> + >> + pmc_results.branches_retired = read_sysreg(pmevcntr0_el0); >> + pmc_results.instructions_retired = read_sysreg(pmevcntr1_el0); >> + >> + GUEST_DONE(); > another direct way to see if the guest can use those filters is to read > the PMCEIDx that indicates whether an event is supported. >
Yes. That's the easist way. Why I do this is because I follow the x86 design.
>> +} >> + >> +static void pmu_event_filter_init(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg) >> +{ >> + struct kvm_device_attr attr = { >> + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, >> + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, >> + }; >> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter = (struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *)arg; >> + >> + while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) { >> + attr.addr = (uint64_t)filter; >> + vcpu_ioctl(vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &attr); >> + filter++; >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static void create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(void *guest_code, >> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter) >> +{ >> + vpmu_vm = __create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, pmu_event_filter_init, filter); >> +} >> + >> +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; >> + default: >> + TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd); >> + } >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static void check_pmc_counting(void) >> +{ >> + uint64_t br = pmc_results.branches_retired; >> + uint64_t ir = pmc_results.instructions_retired; >> + >> + TEST_ASSERT(br && br == NUM_BRANCHES, "Branch instructions retired = " >> + "%lu (expected %u)", br, NUM_BRANCHES); >> + TEST_ASSERT(ir, "Instructions retired = %lu (expected > 0)", ir); >> +} >> + >> +static void check_pmc_not_counting(void) >> +{ >> + uint64_t br = pmc_results.branches_retired; >> + uint64_t ir = pmc_results.instructions_retired; >> + >> + TEST_ASSERT(!br, "Branch instructions retired = %lu (expected 0)", br); >> + TEST_ASSERT(!ir, "Instructions retired = %lu (expected 0)", ir); >> +} >> + >> +static void run_vcpu_and_sync_pmc_results(void) >> +{ >> + memset(&pmc_results, 0, sizeof(pmc_results)); >> + sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm->vm, pmc_results); >> + >> + run_vcpu(vpmu_vm->vcpu); >> + >> + sync_global_from_guest(vpmu_vm->vm, pmc_results); >> +} >> + >> +static void run_test(struct test_desc *t) >> +{ >> + pr_debug("Test: %s\n", t->name); >> + >> + create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(guest_code, t->filter); >> + >> + run_vcpu_and_sync_pmc_results(); >> + >> + t->check_result(); >> + >> + destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); >> +} >> + >> +static struct test_desc tests[] = { >> + {"without_filter", check_pmc_counting, { EMPTY_FILTER }}, >> + {"member_allow_filter", check_pmc_counting, >> + {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 0), DEFINE_FILTER(INST_RETIRED, 0), >> + DEFINE_FILTER(BR_RETIERD, 0), EMPTY_FILTER}}, >> + {"member_deny_filter", check_pmc_not_counting, >> + {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 1), DEFINE_FILTER(INST_RETIRED, 1), >> + DEFINE_FILTER(BR_RETIERD, 1), EMPTY_FILTER}}, >> + {"not_member_deny_filter", check_pmc_counting, >> + {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 1), EMPTY_FILTER}}, >> + {"not_member_allow_filter", check_pmc_not_counting, >> + {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 0), EMPTY_FILTER}}, >> + { 0 } >> +}; >> + >> +static void for_each_test(void) >> +{ >> + struct test_desc *t; >> + >> + for (t = &tests[0]; t->name; t++) >> + run_test(t); >> +} >> + >> +static void set_invalid_filter(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg) >> +{ >> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter invalid; >> + struct kvm_device_attr attr = { >> + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, >> + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, >> + .addr = (uint64_t)&invalid, >> + }; >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + /* The max event number is (1 << 16), set a range large than it. */ >> + invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(BIT(15), BIT(15)+1, 0); >> + ret = __vcpu_ioctl(vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &attr); >> + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter range " >> + "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)", >> + ret, errno); >> + >> + ret = 0; >> + >> + /* Set the Invalid action. */ >> + invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(0, 1, 3); >> + ret = __vcpu_ioctl(vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &attr); >> + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter action " >> + "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)", >> + ret, errno); >> +} >> + >> +static void test_invalid_filter(void) >> +{ >> + vpmu_vm = __create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, set_invalid_filter, NULL); >> + destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); >> +} >> + >> +int main(void) >> +{ >> + TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3)); >> + >> + for_each_test(); >> + >> + test_invalid_filter(); > I would introduce test_invalid_filter in a separate patch
Ok. I can split it into two.
Thanks, Shaoqin
>> +} >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h >> index e0cc1ca1c4b7..db97bfb07996 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h >> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ struct vpmu_vm { >> int gic_fd; >> }; >> >> +struct vpmu_vm *__create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, >> + void (*init_pmu)(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg), >> + void *arg); >> + >> struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code); >> >> void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm); >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c >> index b3de8fdc555e..76ea03d607f1 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c >> @@ -7,8 +7,9 @@ >> #include <vpmu.h> >> #include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h> >> >> -/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ >> -struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) >> +struct vpmu_vm *__create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, >> + void (*init_pmu)(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg), >> + void *arg) >> { >> struct kvm_vcpu_init init; >> uint8_t pmuver; >> @@ -50,12 +51,21 @@ struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) >> "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver); >> >> /* Initialize vPMU */ >> + if (init_pmu) >> + init_pmu(vpmu_vm, arg); >> + >> vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr); >> vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr); >> >> return vpmu_vm; >> } >> >> +/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ >> +struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) >> +{ >> + return __create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL, NULL); >> +} >> + >> void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm) >> { >> close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd); > Thanks > > Eric >
-- Shaoqin
| |