Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V1 1/1] arm64: Add an option to turn on/off host-backed vPMU support

[Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>]

On 8/15/16 11:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 August 2016 at 06:52, Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com> wrote:
>> This patch adds a pmu=[on/off] option to enable/disable host vPMU
>> support in guest VM. There are several reasons to justify this option.
>> First, host-backed vPMU can be problematic for cross-migration between
>> different SoC as perf counters are architecture-dependent. It is more
>> flexible to have an option to turn it on/off. Secondly this option
>> matches the "pmu" option as supported in libvirt tool.
>>
>> Note that, like "has_el3", the "pmu" option is only made available on
>> CPUs that support host-backed vPMU. They include:
>>     * cortex-a53 + kvm
>>     * cortex-a57 + kvm
>>     * host + kvm
>> This option is removed in other configs where it doesn't make sense
>> (e.g. cortex-a57 + TCG); and the default pmu support is off. This patch
>> has been tested under both DT/ACPI modes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/virt.c            |  2 +-
>>  target-arm/cpu.c         | 13 +++++++++++++
>>  target-arm/cpu.h         |  3 ++-
>>  target-arm/cpu64.c       |  6 ++++++
>>  target-arm/kvm64.c       | 10 +++++-----
>>  6 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
>> index 28fc59c..22fb9d9 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
>> @@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ build_madt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtGuestInfo *guest_info)
>>          gicc->uid = i;
>>          gicc->flags = cpu_to_le32(ACPI_GICC_ENABLED);
>>
>> -        if (armcpu->has_pmu) {
>> +        if (armcpu->has_host_pmu) {
>>              gicc->performance_interrupt = cpu_to_le32(PPI(VIRTUAL_PMU_IRQ));
>>          }
>>      }
>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
>> index a193b5a..4975f38 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
>> @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ static void fdt_add_pmu_nodes(const VirtBoardInfo *vbi, int gictype)
>>
>>      CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
>>          armcpu = ARM_CPU(cpu);
>> -        if (!armcpu->has_pmu ||
>> +        if (!armcpu->has_host_pmu ||
>>              !kvm_arm_pmu_create(cpu, PPI(VIRTUAL_PMU_IRQ))) {
>>              return;
>>          }
>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.c b/target-arm/cpu.c
>> index ce8b8f4..a527128 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/cpu.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.c
>> @@ -509,6 +509,10 @@ static Property arm_cpu_rvbar_property =
>>  static Property arm_cpu_has_el3_property =
>>              DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("has_el3", ARMCPU, has_el3, true);
>>
>> +/* use property name "pmu" to match with other archs and libvirt */
>> +static Property arm_cpu_has_host_pmu_property =
>> +    DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("pmu", ARMCPU, has_host_pmu, false);
>> +
>>  static Property arm_cpu_has_mpu_property =
>>              DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("has-mpu", ARMCPU, has_mpu, true);
>>
>> @@ -552,6 +556,11 @@ static void arm_cpu_post_init(Object *obj)
>>  #endif
>>      }
>>
>> +    if (arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU)) {
>> +        qdev_property_add_static(DEVICE(obj), &arm_cpu_has_host_pmu_property,
>> +                                 &error_abort);
>> +    }
>> +
>>      if (arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_MPU)) {
>>          qdev_property_add_static(DEVICE(obj), &arm_cpu_has_mpu_property,
>>                                   &error_abort);
>> @@ -648,6 +657,10 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>>          cpu->id_aa64pfr0 &= ~0xf000;
>>      }
>>
>> +    if (!cpu->has_host_pmu) {
>> +        unset_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
>> +    }
>> +
>>      if (!arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_EL2)) {
>>          /* Disable the hypervisor feature bits in the processor feature
>>           * registers if we don't have EL2. These are id_pfr1[15:12] and
>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
>> index 76d824d..f3f6d3f 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
>> @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ struct ARMCPU {
>>      /* CPU has security extension */
>>      bool has_el3;
>>      /* CPU has PMU (Performance Monitor Unit) */
>> -    bool has_pmu;
>> +    bool has_host_pmu;
> 
> Can you explain why you renamed this? "has_pmu" matches
> the comment: it indicates that the emulated CPU has a PMU.
> has_host_pmu would be something different (and would only

The existing "has_pmu" was added and only enabled under KVM. So its
existing meaning is a bit misleading. It doesn't address the case of TCG.


> apply to KVM). It also looks weird in the code in the board
> model: we should be saying "if the guest CPU has a PMU, wire
> up its interrupt", not "if the host CPU has a PMU, wire
> up a guest CPU interrupt".

I can change it back to "has_pmu" as suggested by you and Drew; but we
need to be careful of using it, especially under TCG mode. For instance,
with "-M virt,accel=tcg -cpu host,pmu=off", we expect PMU is turned off.
But TCG still emulates some PMU counters (e.g. pmccntr).

> 
>>
>>      /* CPU has memory protection unit */
>>      bool has_mpu;
>> @@ -1129,6 +1129,7 @@ enum arm_features {
>>      ARM_FEATURE_V8_SHA256, /* implements SHA256 part of v8 Crypto Extensions */
>>      ARM_FEATURE_V8_PMULL, /* implements PMULL part of v8 Crypto Extensions */
>>      ARM_FEATURE_THUMB_DSP, /* DSP insns supported in the Thumb encodings */
>> +    ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU, /* PMU supported by host */
> 
> ARM_FEATURE_ bits are for guest CPU features, not for
> recording information about the host CPU.

OK, will address it.

> 
>>  };
>>
>>  static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature)
>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu64.c b/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> index 1635deb..19e8127 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> @@ -111,6 +111,9 @@ static void aarch64_a57_initfn(Object *obj)
>>      set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8_PMULL);
>>      set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_CRC);
>>      set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3);
>> +    if (kvm_enabled()) {
>> +        set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
>> +    }
>>      cpu->kvm_target = QEMU_KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A57;
>>      cpu->midr = 0x411fd070;
>>      cpu->revidr = 0x00000000;
>> @@ -166,6 +169,9 @@ static void aarch64_a53_initfn(Object *obj)
>>      set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8_PMULL);
>>      set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_CRC);
>>      set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3);
>> +    if (kvm_enabled()) {
>> +        set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
>> +    }
> 
> This definitely looks like the wrong place to be checking
> kvm_enabled().
> 
>>      cpu->kvm_target = QEMU_KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A53;
>>      cpu->midr = 0x410fd034;
>>      cpu->revidr = 0x00000000;
>> diff --git a/target-arm/kvm64.c b/target-arm/kvm64.c
>> index 5faa76c..588e5e3 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/kvm64.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/kvm64.c
>> @@ -469,6 +469,7 @@ bool kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features(ARMHostCPUClass *ahcc)
>>      set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_VFP4);
>>      set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_NEON);
>>      set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64);
>> +    set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
>>
>>      ahcc->features = features;
>>
>> @@ -501,11 +502,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *cs)
>>      if (!arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64)) {
>>          cpu->kvm_init_features[0] |= 1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT;
>>      }
>> -    if (kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() &&
>> -        kvm_check_extension(cs->kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3)) {
>> -        cpu->has_pmu = true;
>> -        cpu->kvm_init_features[0] |= 1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3;
>> -    }
>> +    /* enable vPMU based on KVM mode, hw capability, and user setting */
>> +    cpu->has_host_pmu &= kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() &&
>> +        kvm_check_extension(cs->kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3);
>> +    cpu->kvm_init_features[0] |= cpu->has_host_pmu << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3;
>>
>>      /* Do KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT ioctl */
>>      ret = kvm_arm_vcpu_init(cs);
>> --
>> 2.4.11
>>
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
>