On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:31 PM Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 2:59 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/10/21 23:55, Jim Mattson wrote: > > >> > > >> Even for tracing the SDM says "Like the value returned by RDTSC, TSC > > >> packets will include these adjustments, but other timing packets (such > > >> as MTC, CYC, and CBR) are not impacted". Considering that "stand-alone > > >> TSC packets are typically generated only when generation of other timing > > >> packets (MTCs and CYCs) has ceased for a period of time", I'm not even > > >> sure it's a good thing that the values in TSC packets are scaled and offset. > > >> > > >> Back to the PMU, for non-architectural counters it's not really possible > > >> to know if they count in cycles or not. So it may not be a good idea to > > >> special case the architectural counters. > > > > > > In that case, what we're doing with the guest PMU is not > > > virtualization. I don't know what it is, but it's not virtualization. > > > > It is virtualization even if it is incompatible with live migration to a > > different SKU (where, as you point out below, multiple TSC frequencies > > might also count as multiple SKUs). But yeah, it's virtualization with > > more caveats than usual. > > It's not virtualization if the counters don't count at the rate the > guest expects them to count. Per the SDM, unhalted reference cycles count at "a fixed frequency." If the frequency changes on migration, then the value of this event is questionable at best. For unhalted core cycles, on the other hand, the SDM says, "The performance counter for this event counts across performance state transitions using different core clock frequencies." That does seem to permit frequency changes on migration, but I suspect that software expects the event to count at a fixed frequency if INVARIANT_TSC is set. I'm not sure that I buy your argument regarding consistency. In general, I would expect the hypervisor to exclude non-architected events from the allow-list for any VM instances running in a heterogeneous migration pool. Certainly, those events could be allowed in a heterogeneous migration pool consisting of multiple SKUs of the same microarchitecture running at different clock frequencies, but that seems like a niche case. > > > Exposing non-architectural events is questionable with live migration, > > > and TSC scaling is unnecessary without live migration. I suppose you > > > could have a migration pool with different SKUs of the same generation > > > with 'seemingly compatible' PMU events but different TSC frequencies, > > > in which case it might be reasonable to expose non-architectural > > > events, but I would argue that any of those 'seemingly compatible' > > > events are actually not compatible if they count in cycles. > > I agree. Support for marshaling/unmarshaling PMU state exists but it's > > more useful for intra-host updates than for actual live migration, since > > these days most live migration will use TSC scaling on the destination. > > > > Paolo > > > > > > > > Unless, of course, Like is right, and the PMU counters do count fractionally. > > > > >
