On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 15:47 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 11:16 +0000, Stamatis, Ilias wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 16:59 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2021-05-06 at 10:32 +0000, ilstam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > From: Ilias Stamatis <ilstam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Test that nested TSC scaling works as expected with both L1 and L2
> > > > scaled.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <ilstam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 +
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > .../kvm/x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test.c | 209 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 211 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
> > > > index bd83158e0e0b..cc02022f9951 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
> > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > > /x86_64/vmx_preemption_timer_test
> > > > /x86_64/vmx_set_nested_state_test
> > > > /x86_64/vmx_tsc_adjust_test
> > > > +/x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test
> > > > /x86_64/xapic_ipi_test
> > > > /x86_64/xen_shinfo_test
> > > > /x86_64/xen_vmcall_test
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > > > index e439d027939d..1078240b1313 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > > > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/vmx_close_while_nested_test
> > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/vmx_dirty_log_test
> > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/vmx_set_nested_state_test
> > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/vmx_tsc_adjust_test
> > > > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test
> > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/xapic_ipi_test
> > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/xss_msr_test
> > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/debug_regs
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..b05f5151ecbe
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2021 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This test case verifies that nested TSC scaling behaves as expected when
> > > > + * both L1 and L2 are scaled using different ratios. For this test we scale
> > > > + * L1 down and scale L2 up.
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "kvm_util.h"
> > > > +#include "vmx.h"
> > > > +#include "kselftest.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +#define VCPU_ID 0
> > > > +
> > > > +/* L1 is scaled down by this factor */
> > > > +#define L1_SCALE_FACTOR 2ULL
> > > > +/* L2 is scaled up (from L1's perspective) by this factor */
> > > > +#define L2_SCALE_FACTOR 4ULL
> > >
> > > For fun, I might have randomized these factors as well.
> >
> > So L2_SCALE_FACTOR (or rather TSC_MULTIPLIER_L2 that depends on it) is
> > referenced from within l1_guest_code(). If we change this to a static variable
> > we won't be able to access it from there. How could this be done?
>
> I also had this thought after I wrote the reply. I don't have much experience
> yet with KVM selftests so this might indeed be not possible.
>
OK, I can make the L1 scale factor random, but the L2 fixed for now.
Does a range of 2 to 10 sound reasonable for L1?
> >
> > For the L1 factor it's easy as we only use it in main().
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +#define TSC_OFFSET_L2 (1UL << 32)
> > > > +#define TSC_MULTIPLIER_L2 (L2_SCALE_FACTOR << 48)
> > >
> > > It would be fun to use a negative offset here (also randomally).
> >
> > Do you mean a random offset that is always negative or a random offset that
> > sometimes is positive and sometimes is negative?
>
> Yep, to test the special case for negative numbers.
OK, I will use a negative offset then but it won't be random for the same
reason as above.
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +#define L2_GUEST_STACK_SIZE 64
> > > > +
> > > > +enum { USLEEP, UCHECK_L1, UCHECK_L2 };
> > > > +#define GUEST_SLEEP(sec) ucall(UCALL_SYNC, 2, USLEEP, sec)
> > > > +#define GUEST_CHECK(level, freq) ucall(UCALL_SYNC, 2, level, freq)
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * This function checks whether the "actual" TSC frequency of a guest matches
> > > > + * its expected frequency. In order to account for delays in taking the TSC
> > > > + * measurements, a difference of 1% between the actual and the expected value
> > > > + * is tolerated.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static void compare_tsc_freq(uint64_t actual, uint64_t expected)
> > > > +{
> > > > + uint64_t tolerance, thresh_low, thresh_high;
> > > > +
> > > > + tolerance = expected / 100;
> > > > + thresh_low = expected - tolerance;
> > > > + thresh_high = expected + tolerance;
> > > > +
> > > > + TEST_ASSERT(thresh_low < actual,
> > > > + "TSC freq is expected to be between %"PRIu64" and %"PRIu64
> > > > + " but it actually is %"PRIu64,
> > > > + thresh_low, thresh_high, actual);
> > > > + TEST_ASSERT(thresh_high > actual,
> > > > + "TSC freq is expected to be between %"PRIu64" and %"PRIu64
> > > > + " but it actually is %"PRIu64,
> > > > + thresh_low, thresh_high, actual);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void check_tsc_freq(int level)
> > > > +{
> > > > + uint64_t tsc_start, tsc_end, tsc_freq;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Reading the TSC twice with about a second's difference should give
> > > > + * us an approximation of the TSC frequency from the guest's
> > > > + * perspective. Now, this won't be completely accurate, but it should
> > > > + * be good enough for the purposes of this test.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > It would be nice to know if the host has stable TSC (you can obtain this via
> > > KVM_GET_CLOCK, the KVM_CLOCK_TSC_STABLE flag).
> > >
> > > And if not stable skip the test, to avoid false positives.
> > > (Yes I have a laptop I just bought that has an unstable TSC....)
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, this is a vm ioctl but I noticed that one of its vcpus needs to have been
> > run at least once otherwise it won't return KVM_CLOCK_TSC_STABLE in the flags.
> >
> > So...
>
> Yes, now I remember that this thing relies on the TSC sync logic,
> master clock thing, etc... Oh well...
>
> To be honest we really need the kernel to export the information
> it knows about the TSC because it is useful to many users and
> not limited to virtualization.
>
> Currently other than KVM's KVM_GET_TSC_KHZ there is no clean way
> to know even the TSC frequency, let alone if kernel considers
> the TSC to be stable AFAIK.
>
> Other more or less reliable (but hacky) way to know if TSC is stable is to see
> if the kernel is using tsc via
> (/sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource = tsc)
>
> Oh well...
So do you suggest checking the content of this file over doing a KVM_GET_CLOCK
ioctl after the vcpu has run once?
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
>
> >
> > > > + tsc_start = rdmsr(MSR_IA32_TSC);
> > > > + GUEST_SLEEP(1);
> > > > + tsc_end = rdmsr(MSR_IA32_TSC);
> > > > +
> > > > + tsc_freq = tsc_end - tsc_start;
> > > > +
> > > > + GUEST_CHECK(level, tsc_freq);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void l2_guest_code(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + check_tsc_freq(UCHECK_L2);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* exit to L1 */
> > > > + __asm__ __volatile__("vmcall");
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void l1_guest_code(struct vmx_pages *vmx_pages)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long l2_guest_stack[L2_GUEST_STACK_SIZE];
> > > > + uint32_t control;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* check that L1's frequency looks alright before launching L2 */
> > > > + check_tsc_freq(UCHECK_L1);
> > > > +
> > > > + GUEST_ASSERT(prepare_for_vmx_operation(vmx_pages));
> > > > + GUEST_ASSERT(load_vmcs(vmx_pages));
> > > > +
> > > > + /* prepare the VMCS for L2 execution */
> > > > + prepare_vmcs(vmx_pages, l2_guest_code, &l2_guest_stack[L2_GUEST_STACK_SIZE]);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* enable TSC offsetting and TSC scaling for L2 */
> > > > + control = vmreadz(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
> > > > + control |= CPU_BASED_USE_MSR_BITMAPS | CPU_BASED_USE_TSC_OFFSETTING;
> > > > + vmwrite(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
> > > > +
> > > > + control = vmreadz(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
> > > > + control |= SECONDARY_EXEC_TSC_SCALING;
> > > > + vmwrite(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
> > > > +
> > > > + vmwrite(TSC_OFFSET, TSC_OFFSET_L2);
> > > > + vmwrite(TSC_MULTIPLIER, TSC_MULTIPLIER_L2);
> > > > + vmwrite(TSC_MULTIPLIER_HIGH, TSC_MULTIPLIER_L2 >> 32);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* launch L2 */
> > > > + GUEST_ASSERT(!vmlaunch());
> > > > + GUEST_ASSERT(vmreadz(VM_EXIT_REASON) == EXIT_REASON_VMCALL);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* check that L1's frequency still looks good */
> > > > + check_tsc_freq(UCHECK_L1);
> > > > +
> > > > + GUEST_DONE();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void tsc_scaling_check_supported(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_TSC_CONTROL)) {
> > > > + print_skip("TSC scaling not supported by the HW");
> > > > + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > > > + vm_vaddr_t vmx_pages_gva;
> > > > +
> > > > + uint64_t tsc_start, tsc_end;
> > > > + uint64_t tsc_khz;
> > > > + uint64_t l0_tsc_freq = 0;
> > > > + uint64_t l1_tsc_freq = 0;
> > > > + uint64_t l2_tsc_freq = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + nested_vmx_check_supported();
> > > > + tsc_scaling_check_supported();
> >
> > I can't add the check here
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + tsc_start = rdtsc();
> > > > + sleep(1);
> > > > + tsc_end = rdtsc();
> > > > +
> > > > + l0_tsc_freq = tsc_end - tsc_start;
> > > > + printf("real TSC frequency is around: %"PRIu64"\n", l0_tsc_freq);
> > > > +
> > > > + vm = vm_create_default(VCPU_ID, 0, (void *) l1_guest_code);
> > > > + vcpu_alloc_vmx(vm, &vmx_pages_gva);
> > > > + vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID, 1, vmx_pages_gva);
> >
> > nor here
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + tsc_khz = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_GET_TSC_KHZ, NULL);
> > > > + TEST_ASSERT(tsc_khz != -1, "vcpu ioctl KVM_GET_TSC_KHZ failed");
> > > > +
> > > > + /* scale down L1's TSC frequency */
> > > > + vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_SET_TSC_KHZ,
> > > > + (void *) (tsc_khz / L1_SCALE_FACTOR));
> > > > +
> > > > + for (;;) {
> > > > + volatile struct kvm_run *run = vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID);
> > > > + struct ucall uc;
> > > > +
> > > > + vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
> > > > + TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO,
> > > > + "Got exit_reason other than KVM_EXIT_IO: %u (%s)\n",
> > > > + run->exit_reason,
> > > > + exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason));
> >
> > should I add it here?
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID, &uc)) {
> > > > + case UCALL_ABORT:
> > > > + TEST_FAIL("%s", (const char *) uc.args[0]);
> > > > + case UCALL_SYNC:
> > > > + switch (uc.args[0]) {
> > > > + case USLEEP:
> > > > + sleep(uc.args[1]);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case UCHECK_L1:
> > > > + l1_tsc_freq = uc.args[1];
> > > > + printf("L1's TSC frequency is around: %"PRIu64
> > > > + "\n", l1_tsc_freq);
> > > > +
> > > > + compare_tsc_freq(l1_tsc_freq,
> > > > + l0_tsc_freq / L1_SCALE_FACTOR);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case UCHECK_L2:
> > > > + l2_tsc_freq = uc.args[1];
> > > > + printf("L2's TSC frequency is around: %"PRIu64
> > > > + "\n", l2_tsc_freq);
> > > > +
> > > > + compare_tsc_freq(l2_tsc_freq,
> > > > + l1_tsc_freq * L2_SCALE_FACTOR);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case UCALL_DONE:
> > > > + goto done;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > +done:
> > > > + kvm_vm_free(vm);
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Overall looks OK to me.
> > >
> > > I can't test it, since the most recent Intel laptop I have (i7-7600U)
> > > still lacks TSC scaling (or did Intel cripple this feature on clients like what
> > > they did with APICv ?)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Maxim Levitsky
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
