On 2024-04-16 1:34 a.m., Zhang, Xiong Y wrote:
>
>
> On 4/16/2024 12:03 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024-04-12 4:56 p.m., Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>> What if perf had a global knob to enable/disable mediate PMU support? Then when
>>>> KVM is loaded with enable_mediated_true, call into perf to (a) check that there
>>>> are no existing !exclude_guest events (this part could be optional), and (b) set
>>>> the global knob to reject all new !exclude_guest events (for the core PMU?).
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, or probably better, do it at VM creation. That has the advantage of playing
>>>> nice with CONFIG_KVM=y (perf could reject the enabling without completely breaking
>>>> KVM), and not causing problems if KVM is auto-probed but the user doesn't actually
>>>> want to run VMs.
>>> I think it should be doable, and may simplify the perf implementation.
>>> (The check in the schedule stage should not be necessary anymore.)
>>>
>>> With this, something like NMI watchdog should fail the VM creation. The
>>> user should either disable the NMI watchdog or use a replacement.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kan
>>>> E.g. (very roughly)
>>>>
>>>> int x86_perf_get_mediated_pmu(void)
>>>> {
>>>> if (refcount_inc_not_zero(...))
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> if (<system wide events>)
>>>> return -EBUSY;
>>>>
>>>> <slow path with locking>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void x86_perf_put_mediated_pmu(void)
>>>> {
>>>> if (!refcount_dec_and_test(...))
>>>> return;
>>>>
>>>> <slow path with locking>
>>>> }
>>
>>
>> I think the locking should include the refcount check and system wide
>> event check as well.
>> It should be possible that two VMs are created very close.
>> The second creation may mistakenly return 0 if there is no lock.
>>
>> I plan to do something as below (not test yet).
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Currently invoked at VM creation to
>> + * - Check whether there are existing !exclude_guest system wide events
>> + * of PMU with PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU
>> + * - Set nr_mediated_pmu to prevent !exclude_guest event creation on
>> + * PMUs with PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU
>> + *
>> + * No impact for the PMU without PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU. The perf
>> + * still owns all the PMU resources.
>> + */
>> +int x86_perf_get_mediated_pmu(void)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + mutex_lock(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> + if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms))
>> + goto end;
>> +
>> + if (atomic_read(&nr_include_guest_events)) {
>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>> + goto end;
>> + }
>> + refcount_inc(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms);
>> +end:
>> + mutex_unlock(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_perf_get_mediated_pmu);
>> +
>> +void x86_perf_put_mediated_pmu(void)
>> +{
>> + mutex_lock(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> + refcount_dec(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms);
>> + mutex_unlock(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_perf_put_mediated_pmu);
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kan
> x86_perf_get_mediated_pmu() is called at vm_create(), x86_perf_put_mediated_pmu() is called at vm_destroy(), then system wide perf events without exclude_guest=1 can not be created during the whole vm life cycle (where nr_mediated_pmu_vms > 0 always), do I understand and use the interface correctly ?
Right, but it only impacts the events of PMU with the
PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU.
For other PMUs, the event with exclude_guest=1 can still be created.
KVM should not touch the counters of the PMU without
PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU.
BTW: I will also remove the prefix x86, since the functions are in the
generic code.
Thanks,
Kan
