From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86/pmu: Clear "reprogram" bit if counter is disabled or disallowed
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 16:26:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0mNxJGpXPAwKLML@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2a83292b-a4d0-8d5e-b52a-31b7fcad2de6@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Like Xu wrote:
> For subject title, the "reprogram" bit is _only_ used to keep track of
> pmc->perf_event,
> not whether the counter is disabled.
>
> On 23/9/2022 8:13 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > When reprogramming a counter, clear the counter's "reprogram pending" bit
> > if the counter is disabled (by the guest) or is disallowed (by the
> > userspace filter). In both cases, there's no need to re-attempt
> > programming on the next coincident KVM_REQ_PMU as enabling the counter by
> > either method will trigger reprogramming.
>
> Perhaps we could move the check_pmu_event_filter() towards the top of the
> call stack.
Top of what call stack exactly? reprogram_counter() has multiple callers, and
the filter check is already near the top of reprogram_counter().
> > @@ -245,7 +245,6 @@ static bool pmc_resume_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> > perf_event_enable(pmc->perf_event);
> > pmc->is_paused = false;
> > - clear_bit(pmc->idx, (unsigned long *)&pmc_to_pmu(pmc)->reprogram_pmi);
>
> This change is very suspicious.
In the current code, pmc_resume_counter() clears the bit iff it returns true.
With this patch, reprogram_counter() is guarnteed to clear the bit if
pmc_resume_counter() returns true.
if (pmc->current_config == new_config && pmc_resume_counter(pmc))
goto reprogram_complete;
pmc_release_perf_event(pmc);
pmc->current_config = new_config;
/*
* If reprogramming fails, e.g. due to contention, leave the counter's
* regprogram bit set, i.e. opportunistically try again on the next PMU
* refresh. Don't make a new request as doing so can stall the guest
* if reprogramming repeatedly fails.
*/
if (pmc_reprogram_counter(pmc, PERF_TYPE_RAW,
(eventsel & pmu->raw_event_mask),
!(eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_USR),
!(eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_OS),
eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_INT))
return;
reprogram_complete:
clear_bit(pmc->idx, (unsigned long *)&pmc_to_pmu(pmc)->reprogram_pmi);
pmc->prev_counter = 0;
> > @@ -324,16 +323,27 @@ void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> > }
> > if (pmc->current_config == new_config && pmc_resume_counter(pmc))
> > - return;
> > + goto reprogram_complete;
> > pmc_release_perf_event(pmc);
> > pmc->current_config = new_config;
> > - pmc_reprogram_counter(pmc, PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> > - (eventsel & pmu->raw_event_mask),
> > - !(eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_USR),
> > - !(eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_OS),
> > - eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_INT);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If reprogramming fails, e.g. due to contention, leave the counter's
> > + * regprogram bit set, i.e. opportunistically try again on the next PMU
>
> This is what we need, in the upstream case we need to keep trying regprogram
> to try to occupy the hardware.
Maybe in an ideal world, but in reality KVM can't guarantee that programming will
ever succeed. Making a new KVM_REQ_PMU will prevent entering the guest, i.e. will
effectively hang the vCPU. Breaking the vPMU isn't great, but hanging the guest
is worse.
> > + * refresh. Don't make a new request as doing so can stall the guest
> > + * if reprogramming repeatedly fails.
>
> This does not happen, the guest still enters w/p perf_event backend support
> and the vPMU is broken until the next vm-exit.
>
> There is no need to endlessly call kvm_pmu_handle_event() when reprogram fails.
Yes, that's what the above comment is calling out, or at least trying to call out.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-14 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-23 0:13 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86/pmu: Counter reprogramming fixes Sean Christopherson
2022-09-23 0:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86/pmu: Force reprogramming of all counters on PMU filter change Sean Christopherson
2022-10-13 12:01 ` Like Xu
2022-10-13 20:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-14 6:41 ` Like Xu
2022-09-23 0:13 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86/pmu: Clear "reprogram" bit if counter is disabled or disallowed Sean Christopherson
2022-10-14 7:14 ` Like Xu
2022-10-14 16:26 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-09-23 0:13 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86/pmu: Defer reprogram_counter() to kvm_pmu_handle_event() Sean Christopherson
2022-09-23 0:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: x86/pmu: Defer counter emulated overflow via pmc->prev_counter Sean Christopherson
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=Y0mNxJGpXPAwKLML@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aaronlewis@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=like.xu.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@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.