From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 10/13] KVM: selftests: Test consistency of CPUID with num of gp counters
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:26:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231024002633.2540714-11-seanjc@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231024002633.2540714-1-seanjc@google.com>
From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
Add a test to verify that KVM correctly emulates MSR-based accesses to
general purpose counters based on guest CPUID, e.g. that accesses to
non-existent counters #GP and accesses to existent counters succeed.
Note, for compatibility reasons, KVM does not emulate #GP when
MSR_P6_PERFCTR[0|1] is not present (writes should be dropped).
Co-developed-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
.../selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
index 410d09f788ef..274b7f4d4b53 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
@@ -212,6 +212,103 @@ static void test_intel_arch_events(void)
}
}
+/*
+ * Limit testing to MSRs that are actually defined by Intel (in the SDM). MSRs
+ * that aren't defined counter MSRs *probably* don't exist, but there's no
+ * guarantee that currently undefined MSR indices won't be used for something
+ * other than PMCs in the future.
+ */
+#define MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS 8
+#define MAX_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS 3
+
+#define GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(insn, msr, expect_gp, vector) \
+__GUEST_ASSERT(expect_gp ? vector == GP_VECTOR : !vector, \
+ "Expected %s on " #insn "(0x%x), got vector %u", \
+ expect_gp ? "#GP" : "no fault", msr, vector) \
+
+static void guest_rd_wr_counters(uint32_t base_msr, uint8_t nr_possible_counters,
+ uint8_t nr_counters)
+{
+ uint8_t i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_possible_counters; i++) {
+ const uint32_t msr = base_msr + i;
+ const bool expect_success = i < nr_counters;
+
+ /*
+ * KVM drops writes to MSR_P6_PERFCTR[0|1] if the counters are
+ * unsupported, i.e. doesn't #GP and reads back '0'.
+ */
+ const uint64_t expected_val = expect_success ? 0xffff : 0;
+ const bool expect_gp = !expect_success && msr != MSR_P6_PERFCTR0 &&
+ msr != MSR_P6_PERFCTR1;
+ uint8_t vector;
+ uint64_t val;
+
+ vector = wrmsr_safe(msr, 0xffff);
+ GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(WRMSR, msr, expect_gp, vector);
+
+ vector = rdmsr_safe(msr, &val);
+ GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDMSR, msr, expect_gp, vector);
+
+ /* On #GP, the result of RDMSR is undefined. */
+ if (!expect_gp)
+ __GUEST_ASSERT(val == expected_val,
+ "Expected RDMSR(0x%x) to yield 0x%lx, got 0x%lx",
+ msr, expected_val, val);
+
+ vector = wrmsr_safe(msr, 0);
+ GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(WRMSR, msr, expect_gp, vector);
+ }
+ GUEST_DONE();
+}
+
+static void guest_test_gp_counters(void)
+{
+ uint8_t nr_gp_counters = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_GP_COUNTERS);
+ uint32_t base_msr;
+
+ if (rdmsr(MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES) & PMU_CAP_FW_WRITES)
+ base_msr = MSR_IA32_PMC0;
+ else
+ base_msr = MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0;
+
+ guest_rd_wr_counters(base_msr, MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS, nr_gp_counters);
+}
+
+static void test_gp_counters(uint8_t nr_gp_counters, uint64_t perf_cap)
+{
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+ struct kvm_vm *vm;
+
+ vm = pmu_vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_test_gp_counters);
+
+ vcpu_set_cpuid_property(vcpu, X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_GP_COUNTERS,
+ nr_gp_counters);
+ vcpu_set_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES, perf_cap);
+
+ run_vcpu(vcpu);
+
+ kvm_vm_free(vm);
+}
+
+static void test_intel_counters(void)
+{
+ uint8_t nr_gp_counters = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_GP_COUNTERS);
+ unsigned int i;
+ uint8_t j;
+
+ const uint64_t perf_caps[] = {
+ 0,
+ PMU_CAP_FW_WRITES,
+ };
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(perf_caps); i++) {
+ for (j = 0; j <= nr_gp_counters; j++)
+ test_gp_counters(j, perf_caps[i]);
+ }
+}
+
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
TEST_REQUIRE(get_kvm_param_bool("enable_pmu"));
@@ -222,6 +319,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PDCM));
test_intel_arch_events();
+ test_intel_counters();
return 0;
}
--
2.42.0.758.gaed0368e0e-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-24 0:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-24 0:26 [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: x86/pmu: selftests: Fixes and new tests Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 01/13] KVM: x86/pmu: Don't allow exposing unsupported architectural events Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 02/13] KVM: x86/pmu: Don't enumerate support for fixed counters KVM can't virtualize Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 03/13] KVM: x86/pmu: Always treat Fixed counters as available when supported Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 04/13] KVM: selftests: Add vcpu_set_cpuid_property() to set properties Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 05/13] KVM: selftests: Drop the "name" param from KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE() Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 06/13] KVM: selftests: Extend {kvm,this}_pmu_has() to support fixed counters Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 07/13] KVM: selftests: Add pmu.h and lib/pmu.c for common PMU assets Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 08/13] KVM: selftests: Test Intel PMU architectural events on gp counters Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 19:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 21:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-10-25 3:17 ` JinrongLiang
2023-10-26 20:38 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-10-26 20:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-10-26 22:10 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-10-26 22:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 09/13] KVM: selftests: Test Intel PMU architectural events on fixed counters Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 11/13] KVM: selftests: Test consistency of CPUID with num of " Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 11:40 ` JinrongLiang
2023-10-24 14:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 12/13] KVM: selftests: Add functional test for Intel's fixed PMU counters Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v5 13/13] KVM: selftests: Extend PMU counters test to permute on vPMU version Sean Christopherson
2023-10-24 11:49 ` JinrongLiang
2023-10-24 14:23 ` 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=20231024002633.2540714-11-seanjc@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=cloudliang@tencent.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=likexu@tencent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox