On 4/23/2024 3:10 PM, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:45 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/23/2024 2:08 PM, maobibo wrote:
On 2024/4/23 下午12:23, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 8:55 PM maobibo <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2024/4/23 上午11:13, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
On 4/23/2024 10:53 AM, maobibo wrote:
On 2024/4/23 上午10:44, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
On 4/23/2024 9:01 AM, maobibo wrote:
On 2024/4/23 上午1:01, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, maobibo wrote:
On 2024/4/16 上午6:45, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:38 AM Sean Christopherson
<seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One my biggest complaints with the current vPMU code is that
the roles and
responsibilities between KVM and perf are poorly defined,
which
leads to suboptimal
and hard to maintain code.
Case in point, I'm pretty sure leaving guest values in PMCs
_would_ leak guest
state to userspace processes that have RDPMC permissions, as
the PMCs might not
be dirty from perf's perspective (see
perf_clear_dirty_counters()).
Blindly clearing PMCs in KVM "solves" that problem, but in
doing so makes the
overall code brittle because it's not clear whether KVM
_needs_
to clear PMCs,
or if KVM is just being paranoid.
So once this rolls out, perf and vPMU are clients directly to
PMU HW.
I don't think this is a statement we want to make, as it opens a
discussion
that we won't win. Nor do I think it's one we *need* to make.
KVM doesn't need
to be on equal footing with perf in terms of owning/managing PMU
hardware, KVM
just needs a few APIs to allow faithfully and accurately
virtualizing a guest PMU.
Faithful cleaning (blind cleaning) has to be the baseline
implementation, until both clients agree to a "deal" between
them.
Currently, there is no such deal, but I believe we could have
one via
future discussion.
What I am saying is that there needs to be a "deal" in place
before this code
is merged. It doesn't need to be anything fancy, e.g. perf can
still pave over
PMCs it doesn't immediately load, as opposed to using
cpu_hw_events.dirty to lazily
do the clearing. But perf and KVM need to work together from
the
get go, ie. I
don't want KVM doing something without regard to what perf does,
and vice versa.
There is similar issue on LoongArch vPMU where vm can directly
pmu
hardware
and pmu hw is shard with guest and host. Besides context switch
there are
other places where perf core will access pmu hw, such as tick
timer/hrtimer/ipi function call, and KVM can only intercept
context switch.
Two questions:
1) Can KVM prevent the guest from accessing the PMU?
2) If so, KVM can grant partial access to the PMU, or is it all
or nothing?
If the answer to both questions is "yes", then it sounds like
LoongArch *requires*
mediated/passthrough support in order to virtualize its PMU.
Hi Sean,
Thank for your quick response.
yes, kvm can prevent guest from accessing the PMU and grant partial
or all to access to the PMU. Only that if one pmu event is granted
to VM, host can not access this pmu event again. There must be pmu
event switch if host want to.
PMU event is a software entity which won't be shared. did you
mean if
a PMU HW counter is granted to VM, then Host can't access the PMU HW
counter, right?
yes, if PMU HW counter/control is granted to VM. The value comes from
guest, and is not meaningful for host. Host pmu core does not know
that it is granted to VM, host still think that it owns pmu.
That's one issue this patchset tries to solve. Current new mediated
x86
vPMU framework doesn't allow Host or Guest own the PMU HW resource
simultaneously. Only when there is no !exclude_guest event on host,
guest is allowed to exclusively own the PMU HW resource.
Just like FPU register, it is shared by VM and host during different
time and it is lately switched. But if IPI or timer interrupt uses
FPU
register on host, there will be the same issue.
I didn't fully get your point. When IPI or timer interrupt reach, a
VM-exit is triggered to make CPU traps into host first and then the
host
yes, it is.
This is correct. And this is one of the points that we had debated
internally whether we should do PMU context switch at vcpu loop
boundary or VM Enter/exit boundary. (host-level) timer interrupt can
force VM Exit, which I think happens every 4ms or 1ms, depending on
configuration.
One of the key reasons we currently propose this is because it is the
same boundary as the legacy PMU, i.e., it would be simple to propose
from the perf subsystem perspective.
Performance wise, doing PMU context switch at vcpu boundary would be
way better in general. But the downside is that perf sub-system lose
the capability to profile majority of the KVM code (functions) when
guest PMU is enabled.
interrupt handler is called. Or are you complaining the executing
sequence of switching guest PMU MSRs and these interrupt handler?
In our vPMU implementation, it is ok if vPMU is switched in vm exit
path, however there is problem if vPMU is switched during vcpu thread
sched-out/sched-in path since IPI/timer irq interrupt access pmu
register in host mode.
Oh, the IPI/timer irq handler will access PMU registers? I thought
only the host-level NMI handler will access the PMU MSRs since PMI is
registered under NMI.
In that case, you should disable IRQ during vcpu context switch. For
NMI, we prevent its handler from accessing the PMU registers. In
particular, we use a per-cpu variable to guard that. So, the
host-level PMI handler for perf sub-system will check the variable
before proceeding.
perf core will access pmu hw in tick timer/hrtimer/ipi function call,
such as function perf_event_task_tick() is called in tick timer, there
are event_function_call(event, __perf_event_xxx, &value) in file
kernel/events/core.c.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240417065236.500011-1-gaosong@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m15aeb79fdc9ce72dd5b374edd6acdcf7a9dafcf4
Just go through functions (not sure if all), whether
perf_event_task_tick() or the callbacks of event_function_call() would
check the event->state first, if the event is in
PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE, the PMU HW MSRs would not be touched really.
In this new proposal, all host events with exclude_guest attribute would
be put on PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE sate if guest own the PMU HW
resource. So I think it's fine.
Is there any event in the host still having PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE?
If so, hmm, it will reach perf_pmu_disable(event->pmu), which will
access the global ctrl MSR.
I don't think there is any event with PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE state on
host when guest owns the PMU HW resource.
In current solution, VM would fail to create if there is any system-wide
event without exclude_guest attribute. If VM is created successfully and
when vm-entry happens, the helper perf_guest_enter() would put all host
events with exclude_guest attribute into PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE state
and block host to create system-wide events without exclude_guest attribute.
