On 1/4/2019 4:58 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
On 01/03/2019 12:33 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
On 12/26/2018 4:25 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
+
+ /*
+ * It could be possible that people have vcpus of old model run on
+ * physcal cpus of newer model, for example a BDW guest on a SKX
+ * machine (but not possible to be the other way around).
+ * The BDW guest may not get accurate results on a SKX machine
as it
+ * only reads 16 entries of the lbr stack while there are 32
entries
+ * of recordings. So we currently forbid the lbr enabling when the
+ * vcpu and physical cpu see different lbr stack entries.
I think it's not enough to only check number of entries. The LBR
from/to MSRs may be different even the number of entries is the same,
e.g SLM and KNL.
Yes, we could add the comparison of the FROM msrs.
+ */
+ switch (vcpu_model) {
That's a duplicate of intel_pmu_init(). I think it's better to factor
out the common part if you want to check LBR MSRs and entries. Then we
don't need to add the same codes in two different places when enabling
new platforms.
Yes, I thought about this, but intel_pmu_init() does a lot more things
in each "Case xx". Any thought about how to factor them out?
I think we may only move the "switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_model) { ... }"
to a new function, e.g. __intel_pmu_init(int model, struct x86_pmu *x86_pmu)
In __intel_pmu_init, if the model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model, you only
need to update x86_pmu.*. Just ignore global settings, e.g
hw_cache_event_ids, mem_attr, extra_attr etc.
You may also need to introduce another new function to check if the LBR
is compatible with guest in lbr.c, e.g. bool
is_lbr_compatible_with_guest(int model).
bool is_lbr_compatible_with_guest(int model) {
struct x86_pmu fake_x86_pmu;
if (boot_cpu_data.x86_model == model)
return true;
__intel_pmu_init(model, &fake_x86_pmu);
if ((x86_pmu.lbr_nr == fake_x86_pmu.lbr_nr) &&
(x86_pmu.lbr_tos == fake_x86_pmu.lbr_tos) &&
(x86_pmu.lbr_from == fake_x86_pmu.lbr_from))
return true;
return false;
}
Actually, I think we may just support LBR for guest if it has the
identical CPU model as host. It should be good enough for now.
I actually tried this in the first place but it failed to work with the
existing QEMU.
For example, when we specify "Broadwell" cpu from qemu, then qemu uses
Broadwell core model,
but the physical machine I have is Broadwell X. This patch will support
this case.
I mean is it good enough if we only support "-cpu host"?
Thanks,
Kan
