From: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
To: pbonzini@redhat.com, like.xu@linux.intel.com
Cc: ehankland@google.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
wanpengli@tencent.com
Subject: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/pmu: Reduce counter period change overhead and delay the effective time
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:14:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200317081458.88714-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200317075315.70933-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
The cost of perf_event_period() is unstable, and when the guest samples
multiple events, the overhead increases dramatically (5378 ns on E5-2699).
For a non-running counter, the effective time of the new period is when
its corresponding enable bit is enabled. Calling perf_event_period()
in advance is superfluous. For a running counter, it's safe to delay the
effective time until the KVM_REQ_PMU event is handled. If there are
multiple perf_event_period() calls before handling KVM_REQ_PMU,
it helps to reduce the total cost.
Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 11 -----------
arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h | 11 +++++++++++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 10 ++++------
3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
index d1f8ca57d354..527a8bb85080 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
@@ -437,17 +437,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu);
}
-static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
-{
- struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc);
-
- if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc))
- return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl,
- pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3;
-
- return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE;
-}
-
/* Release perf_events for vPMCs that have been unused for a full time slice. */
void kvm_pmu_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
index d7da2b9e0755..cd112e825d2c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
@@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ static inline u64 get_sample_period(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 counter_value)
return sample_period;
}
+static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
+{
+ struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc);
+
+ if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc))
+ return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl,
+ pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3;
+
+ return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE;
+}
+
void reprogram_gp_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 eventsel);
void reprogram_fixed_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u8 ctrl, int fixed_idx);
void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
index 7c857737b438..20f654a0c09b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
@@ -263,15 +263,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
data = (s64)(s32)data;
pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc);
- if (pmc->perf_event)
- perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event,
- get_sample_period(pmc, data));
+ if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc))
+ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu);
return 0;
} else if ((pmc = get_fixed_pmc(pmu, msr))) {
pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc);
- if (pmc->perf_event)
- perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event,
- get_sample_period(pmc, data));
+ if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc))
+ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu);
return 0;
} else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) {
if (data == pmc->eventsel)
--
2.21.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-17 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-17 7:53 [PATCH] kvm/x86: Reduce counter period change overhead and delay the effective time Like Xu
2020-03-17 8:00 ` Like Xu
2020-03-17 8:14 ` Like Xu [this message]
2020-03-26 12:47 ` [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/pmu: " Like Xu
2020-04-08 14:04 ` Like Xu
2020-04-16 14:41 ` Like Xu
2020-03-17 16:28 ` [PATCH] kvm/x86: " kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 21:38 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200317081458.88714-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com \
--to=like.xu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ehankland@google.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.