From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] kvm: arm/arm64: Add host pmu to support VM introspection Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:35:23 +0000 Message-ID: <20170118113523.GB3231@leverpostej> References: <20170110113856.7183-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170110113856.7183-7-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <1a6b8d71-58a5-b29b-3f01-e945deb2baf6@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Punit Agrawal , Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Marc Zyngier Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1a6b8d71-58a5-b29b-3f01-e945deb2baf6@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:21:21AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 10/01/17 11:38, Punit Agrawal wrote: > > +#define VM_MASK GENMASK_ULL(31, 0) > > +#define EVENT_MASK GENMASK_ULL(32, 39) > > +#define EVENT_SHIFT (32) > > + > > +#define to_pid(cfg) ((cfg) & VM_MASK) > > +#define to_event(cfg) (((cfg) & EVENT_MASK) >> EVENT_SHIFT) > > + > > +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(vm, "config:0-31"); > > +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event, "config:32-39"); > > I'm a bit confused by these. Can't you get the PID of the VM you're > tracing directly from perf, without having to encode things? And if you > can't, surely this should be a function of the size of pid_t? > > Mark, can you shine some light here? AFAICT, this is not necessary. The perf_event_open() syscall takes a PID separately from the perf_event_attr. i.e. we should be able to do: // monitor a particular vCPU perf_event_open(attr, vcpupid, -1, -1, 0) ... or .. // monitor a particular vCPU on a pCPU perf_event_open(attr, vcpupid, cpu, -1, 0) ... or ... // monitor all vCPUs on a pCPU perf_event_open(attr, -1, cpu, -1, 0) ... so this shouldn't be necessary. AFAICT, this is a SW PMU, so there should be no issue with using the perf_sw_context. If this is a bodge to avoid opening a perf_event per vCPU thread, then I completely disagree with the approach. This would be better handled in userspace by discovering the set of threads and opening events for each. Thanks, Mark.