On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> Currently this test does a single CLFLUSH on its memory location
> but due to speculative execution this might not cause LLC misses.
>
> Instead, do a cache flush on each loop iteration to confuse the prediction
> and make sure that cache misses always occur.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c | 20 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> index 96446134c00b7..ddc0b7e4a888e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@
> * instructions that are needed to set up the loop and then disabled the
> * counter. 1 CLFLUSH/CLFLUSHOPT/NOP, 1 MFENCE, 2 MOV, 2 XOR, 1 WRMSR.
> */
> -#define NUM_EXTRA_INSNS 7
> -#define NUM_INSNS_RETIRED (NUM_BRANCHES + NUM_EXTRA_INSNS)
> +#define NUM_EXTRA_INSNS 5
> +#define NUM_INSNS_RETIRED (NUM_BRANCHES * 2 + NUM_EXTRA_INSNS)
The comment above is stale. I also think it's worth adding a macro to capture
that the '2' comes from having two instructions in the loop body (three, if we
keep the MFENCE).
> static uint8_t kvm_pmu_version;
> static bool kvm_has_perf_caps;
> @@ -133,9 +133,8 @@ static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx,
> * doesn't need to be clobbered as the input value, @pmc_msr, is restored
> * before the end of the sequence.
> *
> - * If CLFUSH{,OPT} is supported, flush the cacheline containing (at least) the
> - * start of the loop to force LLC references and misses, i.e. to allow testing
> - * that those events actually count.
> + * If CLFUSH{,OPT} is supported, flush the cacheline containing the CLFUSH{,OPT}
> + * instruction on each loop iteration to ensure that LLC cache misses happen.
> *
> * If forced emulation is enabled (and specified), force emulation on a subset
> * of the measured code to verify that KVM correctly emulates instructions and
> @@ -145,10 +144,9 @@ static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx,
> #define GUEST_MEASURE_EVENT(_msr, _value, clflush, FEP) \
> do { \
> __asm__ __volatile__("wrmsr\n\t" \
> - clflush "\n\t" \
> - "mfence\n\t" \
Based on your testing, it's probably ok to drop the mfence, but I don't see any
reason to do so. It's not like that mfence meaningfully affects the runtime, and
anything easy/free we can do to avoid flaky tests is worth doing.
I'll post and apply a v2, with a prep patch to add a NUM_INSNS_PER_LOOP macro and
keep the MFENCE (I'll be offline all of next week, and don't want to push anything
to -next tomorrow, even though the risk of breaking anything is minimal).
> - "1: mov $" __stringify(NUM_BRANCHES) ", %%ecx\n\t" \
> - FEP "loop .\n\t" \
> + " mov $" __stringify(NUM_BRANCHES) ", %%ecx\n\t" \
> + "1: " clflush "\n\t" \
> + FEP "loop 1b\n\t" \
> FEP "mov %%edi, %%ecx\n\t" \
> FEP "xor %%eax, %%eax\n\t" \
> FEP "xor %%edx, %%edx\n\t" \
> @@ -163,9 +161,9 @@ do { \
> wrmsr(pmc_msr, 0); \
> \
> if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSHOPT)) \
> - GUEST_MEASURE_EVENT(_ctrl_msr, _value, "clflushopt 1f", FEP); \
> + GUEST_MEASURE_EVENT(_ctrl_msr, _value, "clflushopt .", FEP); \
> else if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH)) \
> - GUEST_MEASURE_EVENT(_ctrl_msr, _value, "clflush 1f", FEP); \
> + GUEST_MEASURE_EVENT(_ctrl_msr, _value, "clflush .", FEP); \
> else \
> GUEST_MEASURE_EVENT(_ctrl_msr, _value, "nop", FEP); \
> \
> --
> 2.26.3
>
