On Fri, Jun 30, 2023, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 07:28:29AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 05:11:06PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > @@ -74,6 +74,14 @@ static inline u64 pmc_read_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> > > > return counter & pmc_bitmask(pmc);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline void pmc_write_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 val)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (pmc->perf_event && !pmc->is_paused)
> > > > + perf_event_set_count(pmc->perf_event, val);
> > > > +
> > > > + pmc->counter = val;
> > >
> > > Doesn't this still have the original problem of storing wider value than
> > > allowed?
> >
> > Yes, this was just to fix the counter offset weirdness. My plan is to apply your
> > patch on top. Sorry for not making that clear.
>
> Ah, got it, thanks!
>
> Also I'm now chasing a problem that we occasionally see
>
> [3939579.462832] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 30 on CPU 43.
> [3939579.462836] Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
> [3939579.462836] Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
>
> in the guests when perf is used. These messages disappear when
> 9cd803d496e7 ("KVM: x86: Update vPMCs when retiring instructions") is
> reverted. I haven't yet figured out where exactly the culprit is.
Can you reverting de0f619564f4 ("KVM: x86/pmu: Defer counter emulated overflow
via pmc->prev_counter")? I suspect the problem is the prev_counter mess.
