On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:01:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> The PMU emulation code uses the perf event sample period to trigger
> the overflow detection. This works fine for the *first* overflow
> handling, but results in a huge number of interrupts on the host,
> unrelated to the number of interrupts handled in the guest (a x20
> factor is pretty common for the cycle counter). On a slow system
> (such as a SW model), this can result in the guest only making
> forward progress at a glacial pace.
>
> It turns out that the clue is in the name. The sample period is
> exactly that: a period. And once the an overflow has occured,
> the following period should be the full width of the associated
> counter, instead of whatever the guest had initially programed.
>
> Reset the sample period to the architected value in the overflow
> handler, which now results in a number of host interrupts that is
> much closer to the number of interrupts in the guest.
>
> Fixes: b02386eb7dac ("arm64: KVM: Add PMU overflow interrupt routing")
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index 25a483a04beb..8b524d74c68a 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -442,6 +442,20 @@ static void kvm_pmu_perf_overflow(struct perf_event *perf_event,
> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = perf_event->overflow_handler_context;
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kvm_pmc_to_vcpu(pmc);
> int idx = pmc->idx;
> + u64 period;
> +
> + /*
> + * Reset the sample period to the architectural limit,
> + * i.e. the point where the counter overflows.
> + */
> + period = -(local64_read(&pmc->perf_event->count));
> +
> + if (!kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(vcpu, pmc->idx))
> + period &= GENMASK(31, 0);
> +
> + local64_set(&pmc->perf_event->hw.period_left, 0);
> + pmc->perf_event->attr.sample_period = period;
> + pmc->perf_event->hw.sample_period = period;
I believe that above, you are reducing the period by the amount period_left
would have been - they cancel each other out.
Given that kvm_pmu_perf_overflow is now always called between a
cpu_pmu->pmu.stop and a cpu_pmu->pmu.start, it means armpmu_event_update
has been called prior to this function, and armpmu_event_set_period will
be called after...
Therefore, I think the above could be reduced to:
+ /*
+ * Reset the sample period to the architectural limit,
+ * i.e. the point where the counter overflows.
+ */
+ u64 period = GENMASK(63, 0);
+ if (!kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(vcpu, pmc->idx))
+ period = GENMASK(31, 0);
+
+ pmc->perf_event->attr.sample_period = period;
+ pmc->perf_event->hw.sample_period = period;
This is because armpmu_event_set_period takes into account the overflow
and the counter wrapping via the "if (unlikely(left <= 0)) {" block.
Though this code confuses me easily, so I may be talking rubbish.
>
> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMOVSSET_EL0) |= BIT(idx);
>
> @@ -557,6 +571,7 @@ static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
> attr.exclude_host = 1; /* Don't count host events */
> attr.config = (pmc->idx == ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX) ?
> ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES : eventsel;
> + attr.config1 = PERF_ATTR_CFG1_RELOAD_EVENT;
I'm not sure that this flag, or patch 4 is really needed. As the perf
events created by KVM are pinned to the task and exclude_(host,hv) are set -
I think the perf event is not active at this point. Therefore if you change
the sample period, you can wait until the perf event gets scheduled back in
(when you return to the guest) where it's call to pmu.start will result in
armpmu_event_set_period being called. In other words the pmu.start and
pmu.stop you add in patch 4 is effectively being done for you by perf when
the KVM task is switched out.
I'd be interested to see if the following works:
+ WARN_ON(pmc->perf_event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE)
+
+ /*
+ * Reset the sample period to the architectural limit,
+ * i.e. the point where the counter overflows.
+ */
+ u64 period = GENMASK(63, 0);
+ if (!kvm_pmu_idx_is_64bit(vcpu, pmc->idx))
+ period = GENMASK(31, 0);
+
+ pmc->perf_event->attr.sample_period = period;
+ pmc->perf_event->hw.sample_period = period;
>
> counter = kvm_pmu_get_pair_counter_value(vcpu, pmc);
>
What about ARM 32 bit support for this?
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
> --
> 2.20.1
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
