On 4/15/2024 11:05 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, Xiong Y Zhang wrote:
>> On 4/13/2024 2:32 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Xiong Y Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> 2. NMI watchdog
>>>>>> the perf event for NMI watchdog is a system wide cpu pinned event, it
>>>>>> will be stopped also during vm running, but it doesn't have
>>>>>> attr.exclude_guest=1, we add it in this RFC. But this still means NMI
>>>>>> watchdog loses function during VM running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two candidates exist for replacing perf event of NMI watchdog:
>>>>>> a. Buddy hardlock detector[3] may be not reliable to replace perf event.
>>>>>> b. HPET-based hardlock detector [4] isn't in the upstream kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the simplest solution is to allow mediated PMU usage if and only if
>>>>> the NMI watchdog is disabled. Then whether or not the host replaces the NMI
>>>>> watchdog with something else becomes an orthogonal discussion, i.e. not KVM's
>>>>> problem to solve.
>>>> Make sense. KVM should not affect host high priority work.
>>>> NMI watchdog is a client of perf and is a system wide perf event, perf can't
>>>> distinguish a system wide perf event is NMI watchdog or others, so how about
>>>> we extend this suggestion to all the system wide perf events ? mediated PMU
>>>> is only allowed when all system wide perf events are disabled or non-exist at
>>>> vm creation.
>>>
>>> What other kernel-driven system wide perf events are there?
>> does "kernel-driven" mean perf events created through
>> perf_event_create_kernel_counter() like nmi_watchdog and kvm perf events ?
>
> By kernel-driven I meant events that aren't tied to a single userspace process
> or action.
>
> E.g. KVM creates events, but those events are effectively user-driven because
> they will go away if the associated VM terminates.
>
>> User can create system wide perf event through "perf record -e {} -a" also, I
>> call it as user-driven system wide perf events. Perf subsystem doesn't
>> distinguish "kernel-driven" and "user-driven" system wide perf events.
>
> Right, but us humans can build a list, even if it's only for documentation, e.g.
> to provide help for someone to run KVM guests with mediated PMUs, but can't
> because there are active !exclude_guest events.
>
>>>> but NMI watchdog is usually enabled, this will limit mediated PMU usage.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is at all unreasonable to require users that want optimal PMU
>>> virtualization to adjust their environment. And we can and should document the
>>> tradeoffs and alternatives, e.g. so that users that want better PMU results don't
>>> need to re-discover all the "gotchas" on their own.
>>>
>>> This would even be one of the rare times where I would be ok with a dmesg log.
>>> E.g. if KVM is loaded with enable_mediated_pmu=true, but there are system wide
>>> perf events, pr_warn() to explain the conflict and direct the user at documentation
>>> explaining how to make their system compatible with mediate PMU usage.>
>>>>>> 3. Dedicated kvm_pmi_vector
>>>>>> In emulated vPMU, host PMI handler notify KVM to inject a virtual
>>>>>> PMI into guest when physical PMI belongs to guest counter. If the
>>>>>> same mechanism is used in passthrough vPMU and PMI skid exists
>>>>>> which cause physical PMI belonging to guest happens after VM-exit,
>>>>>> then the host PMI handler couldn't identify this PMI belongs to
>>>>>> host or guest.
>>>>>> So this RFC uses a dedicated kvm_pmi_vector, PMI belonging to guest
>>>>>> has this vector only. The PMI belonging to host still has an NMI
>>>>>> vector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without considering PMI skid especially for AMD, the host NMI vector
>>>>>> could be used for guest PMI also, this method is simpler and doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how multiplexing NMIs between guest and host is simpler. At best,
>>>>> the complexity is a wash, just in different locations, and I highly doubt it's
>>>>> a wash. AFAIK, there is no way to precisely know that an NMI came in via the
>>>>> LVTPC.
>>>> when kvm_intel.pt_mode=PT_MODE_HOST_GUEST, guest PT's PMI is a multiplexing
>>>> NMI between guest and host, we could extend guest PT's PMI framework to
>>>> mediated PMU. so I think this is simpler.
>>>
>>> Heh, what do you mean by "this"? Using a dedicated IRQ vector, or extending the
>>> PT framework of multiplexing NMI?
>> here "this" means "extending the PT framework of multiplexing NMI".
>
> The PT framework's multiplexing is just as crude as regular PMIs though. Perf
> basically just asks KVM: is this yours? And KVM simply checks that the callback
> occurred while KVM_HANDLING_NMI is set.
>
> E.g. prior to commit 11df586d774f ("KVM: VMX: Handle NMI VM-Exits in noinstr region"),
> nothing would prevent perf from miscontruing a host PMI as a guest PMI, because
> KVM re-enabled host PT prior to servicing guest NMIs, i.e. host PT would be active
> while KVM_HANDLING_NMI is set.
>
> And conversely, if a guest PMI skids past VM-Exit, as things currently stand, the
> NMI will always be treated as host PMI, because KVM will not be in KVM_HANDLING_NMI.
> KVM's emulated PMI can (and should) eliminate false positives for host PMIs by
> precisely checking exclude_guest, but that doesn't help with false negatives for
> guest PMIs, nor does it help with NMIs that aren't perf related, i.e. didn't come
> from the LVTPC>
> Is a naive implementation simpler? Maybe. But IMO, multiplexing NMI and getting
> all the edge cases right is more complex than using a dedicated vector for guest
> PMIs, as the latter provides a "hard" boundary and allows the kernel to _know_ that
> an interrupt is for a guest PMI.
>Totally agree the complex to fix multiplexing NMI corner case. Thanks for explanation.
