On 11/1/2023 11:24 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:16 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/1/2023 10:47 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:33 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/1/2023 2:47 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:22 AM Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Intel CPUs, like Sapphire Rapids, introduces a new fixed counter
(fixed counter 3) to counter/sample topdown.slots event, but current
code still doesn't cover this new fixed counter.
So this patch adds code to validate this new fixed counter can count
slots event correctly.
I'm not convinced that this actually validates anything.
Suppose, for example, that KVM used fixed counter 1 when the guest
asked for fixed counter 3. Wouldn't this test still pass?
Per my understanding, as long as the KVM returns a valid count in the
reasonable count range, we can think KVM works correctly. We don't need
to entangle on how KVM really uses the HW, it could be impossible and
unnecessary.
Now, I see how the Pentium FDIV bug escaped notice. Hey, the numbers
are in a reasonable range. What's everyone upset about?
Yeah, currently the predefined valid count range may be some kind of
loose since I want to cover as much as hardwares and avoid to cause
regression. Especially after introducing the random jump and clflush
instructions, the cycles and slots become much more hard to predict.
Maybe we can have a comparable restricted count range in the initial
change, and we can loosen the restriction then if we encounter a failure
on some specific hardware. do you think it's better? Thanks.
I think the test is essentially useless, and should probably just be
deleted, so that it doesn't give a false sense of confidence.
IMO, I can't say the tests are totally useless. Yes, passing the tests
doesn't mean the KVM vPMU must work correctly, but we can say there is
something probably wrong if it fails to pass these tests. Considering
the hardware differences, it's impossible to set an exact value for
these events in advance and it seems there is no better method to verify
the PMC count as well. I still prefer to keep these tests until we have
a better method to verify the accuracy of the PMC count.
If it's impossible to set an exact value for these events in advance,
how does Intel validate the hardware PMU?
I have no much idea how HW team validates the PMU functionality. But per
my gotten information, they could have some very tiny benchmarks with a
fixed pattern and run them on a certain scenario, so they can expect an
very accurate count value. But this is different with our case, a real
program is executed on a real system (probably shared with other
programs), the events count is impacted by too much hardware/software
factors, such as cache contention, it's hard to predict a single
accurate count in advance.
Anyway, it's only my guess about the ways of hardware validation, still
add Kan to get more information.
Hi Kan,
Do you have more information about how HW team to validate the PMC count
accuracy? Thanks.
