On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:37:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote: > > > > From: Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream > > > > > > > > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the > > > > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for > > > > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the > > > > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values. > > > > > > > > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3 > > > > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is > > > > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND. > > > > > > > > [0] https://rr-project.org/ > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Message-Id: <20220503050136.86298-1-khuey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo] > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context] > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c > > > > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = { > > > > [7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND }, > > > > }; > > > > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */ > > > > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = { > > > > + [0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES }, > > > > + [1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS }, > > > > + [2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES }, > > > > + [3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES }, > > > > + [4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS }, > > > > + [5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES }, > > > > + [6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND }, > > > > + [7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND }, > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */ > > > > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) == > > > > + ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping)); > > > > + > > > > static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type) > > > > { > > > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu); > > > > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, > > > > u8 event_select, > > > > u8 unit_mask) > > > > { > > > > + struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping; > > > > int i; > > > > + if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17) > > > > + event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping; > > > > + else > > > > + event_mapping = amd_event_mapping; > > > > + > > > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++) > > > > - if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select > > > > - && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask) > > > > + if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select > > > > + && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask) > > > > break; > > > > if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping)) > > > > return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX; > > > > - return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type; > > > > + return event_mapping[i].event_type; > > > > } > > > > /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */ > > > > > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Paolo > > > > > > > Wait, how was this tested? > > > > It breaks the build: > > > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’: > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’? > > 152 | if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17) > > | ^~~ > > | pmu > > > > > > I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd. Always at least test-build > > your changes... > > Hm, no, I don't know what the correct fix is here. I'll wait for a > fixed up (and tested) patch to be resubmited please. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Sorry, I tested an earlier version without the guest_cpuid_family fix that Paolo made when he committed my patch, and of course that's the hang up here. I'll get this fixed up for you. - Kyle
