On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:41:49PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 22/01/2019 10:49, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > To prevent re-creating perf events everytime the counter registers
> > are changed, let's instead lazily create the event when the event
> > is first enabled and destroy it when it changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > index 4464899..1921ca9 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > @@ -24,8 +24,11 @@
> > #include <kvm/arm_pmu.h>
> > #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
> >
> > -static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
> > - u64 select_idx);
> > +static void kvm_pmu_reenable_enabled_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 pair);
> > +static void kvm_pmu_counter_create_enabled_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > + u64 select_idx);
> > +static void kvm_pmu_stop_counter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_pmc *pmc);
> > +
> > /**
> > * kvm_pmu_get_counter_value - get PMU counter value
> > * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > @@ -59,18 +62,16 @@ u64 kvm_pmu_get_counter_value(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > */
> > void kvm_pmu_set_counter_value(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx, u64 val)
> > {
> > - u64 reg, data;
> > + u64 reg;
> > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > + struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> >
> > reg = (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX)
> > ? PMCCNTR_EL0 : PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + select_idx;
> > __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, reg) += (s64)val - kvm_pmu_get_counter_value(vcpu, select_idx);
> >
> > - reg = (select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX)
> > - ? PMCCFILTR_EL0 : PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + select_idx;
> > - data = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, reg + select_idx);
> > -
> > - /* Recreate the perf event to reflect the updated sample_period */
> > - kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, data, select_idx);
> > + kvm_pmu_stop_counter(vcpu, pmc);
>
> Shouldn't this be before we do the write to __vcpu_sys_reg()?
I don't think we need to. It's the users choice to set a counter value whilst
it's still counting. In fact the later we leave it the better as there is then
a smaller period of time where we're not counting when we should be.
>
> > + kvm_pmu_reenable_enabled_single(vcpu, select_idx);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ static void kvm_pmu_release_perf_event(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> >
> > /**
> > * kvm_pmu_stop_counter - stop PMU counter
> > + * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > * @pmc: The PMU counter pointer
> > *
> > * If this counter has been configured to monitor some event, release it here.
> > @@ -150,6 +152,25 @@ u64 kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > + * kvm_pmu_enable_counter_single - create/enable a unpaired counter
> > + * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > + * @select_idx: The counter index
> > + */
> > +static void kvm_pmu_enable_counter_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > + struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> > +
> > + if (!pmc->perf_event) {
> > + kvm_pmu_counter_create_enabled_perf_event(vcpu, select_idx);
> > + } else if (pmc->perf_event) {
>
> "else" is enough here, no need for "else if" :) .
Not sure where that come from!
>
>
> Actually, after we call kvm_pmu_counter_create_enabled_perf_event() we
> know that pmc->perf_event != NULL.
>
> Shouldn't we execute the code below unconditionally?
I guess I wanted to avoid calling perf_event_enable on an event that
was already enabled (in the case pmc->perf_event is NULL on entry here).
Though along with Suzuki's feedback, I'll take your suggestion here, but
update kvm_pmu_counter_create_enabled_perf_event to not enable the event
by default. It's clearer then all around.
>
> > + perf_event_enable(pmc->perf_event);
> > + if (pmc->perf_event->state != PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE)
> > + kvm_debug("fail to enable perf event\n");
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > * kvm_pmu_enable_counter - enable selected PMU counter
> > * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > * @val: the value guest writes to PMCNTENSET register
> > @@ -159,8 +180,6 @@ u64 kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > void kvm_pmu_enable_counter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > - struct kvm_pmc *pmc;
> >
> > if (!(__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E) || !val)
> > return;
> > @@ -169,16 +188,44 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> > if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> > continue;
> >
> > - pmc = &pmu->pmc[i];
> > - if (pmc->perf_event) {
> > - perf_event_enable(pmc->perf_event);
> > - if (pmc->perf_event->state != PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE)
> > - kvm_debug("fail to enable perf event\n");
> > - }
> > + kvm_pmu_enable_counter_single(vcpu, i);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > + * kvm_pmu_reenable_enabled_single - reenable a counter if it should be enabled
> > + * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > + * @select_idx: The counter index
> > + */
> > +static void kvm_pmu_reenable_enabled_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > + u64 select_idx)
>
> Not completely convinced by the name. kvm_pmu_sync_counter_status() ?
>
> Or maybe have the callers check whether they actually need to
> disable/enable and not have this function.
I don't think checking in the callers is the right approach.
Though perhaps kvm_pmu_sync_counter_enable is more understandable.
>
> > +{
> > + u64 mask = kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask(vcpu);
> > + u64 set = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0) & mask;
> > +
> > + if (!(__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (set & BIT(select_idx))
> > + kvm_pmu_enable_counter_single(vcpu, select_idx);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * kvm_pmu_disable_counter - disable selected PMU counter
> > + * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > + * @pmc: The counter to dissable
> > + */
> > +static void kvm_pmu_disable_counter_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > + u64 select_idx)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > + struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> > +
> > + if (pmc->perf_event)
> > + perf_event_disable(pmc->perf_event);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > * kvm_pmu_disable_counter - disable selected PMU counter
> > * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > * @val: the value guest writes to PMCNTENCLR register
> > @@ -188,8 +235,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_enable_counter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> > void kvm_pmu_disable_counter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > - struct kvm_pmc *pmc;
> >
> > if (!val)
> > return;
> > @@ -198,9 +243,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_disable_counter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> > if (!(val & BIT(i)))
> > continue;
> >
> > - pmc = &pmu->pmc[i];
> > - if (pmc->perf_event)
> > - perf_event_disable(pmc->perf_event);
> > + kvm_pmu_disable_counter_single(vcpu, i);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -382,28 +425,22 @@ void kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static bool kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> > -{
> > - return (__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E) &&
> > - (__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCNTENSET_EL0) & BIT(select_idx));
> > -}
> > -
> > /**
> > - * kvm_pmu_create_perf_event - create a perf event for a counter
> > + * kvm_pmu_counter_create_enabled_perf_event - create a perf event for a counter
> > * @vcpu: The vcpu pointer
> > - * @data: Type of event as per PMXEVTYPER_EL0 format
> > * @select_idx: The number of selected counter
> > */
> > -static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
> > - u64 select_idx)
> > +static void kvm_pmu_counter_create_enabled_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > + u64 select_idx)
> > {
> > struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> > struct perf_event *event;
> > struct perf_event_attr attr;
> > - u64 eventsel, counter;
> > + u64 eventsel, counter, data;
> > +
> > + data = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + select_idx);
>
> Should we worry about the case select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX?
>
> >
> > - kvm_pmu_stop_counter(vcpu, pmc);
> > eventsel = data & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
> >
> > /* Software increment event does't need to be backed by a perf event */
> > @@ -415,7 +452,6 @@ static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
> > attr.type = PERF_TYPE_RAW;
> > attr.size = sizeof(attr);
> > attr.pinned = 1;
> > - attr.disabled = !kvm_pmu_counter_is_enabled(vcpu, select_idx);
> > attr.exclude_user = data & ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0 ? 1 : 0;
> > attr.exclude_kernel = data & ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1 ? 1 : 0;
> > attr.exclude_hv = 1; /* Don't count EL2 events */
> > @@ -451,7 +487,13 @@ static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
> > void kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data,
> > u64 select_idx)
> > {
> > - kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(vcpu, data, select_idx);
> > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
> > + struct kvm_pmc *pmc = &pmu->pmc[select_idx];
> > + u64 event_type = data & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_MASK;
> > +
> > + kvm_pmu_stop_counter(vcpu, pmc);
> > + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + select_idx) = event_type;
>
> Why don't we take into account the select_idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX
> case into account anymore?
>
We should, I've missed this - thanks for spotting this.
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
> > + kvm_pmu_reenable_enabled_single(vcpu, select_idx);
> > }
> >
> > bool kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3(void)
> >
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Thierry
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
