From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 16/29] KVM: selftests: Test Intel PMU architectural events on gp counters
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:37:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZaGxNsrf_pUHkFiY@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f51fda5-bc07-42ac-a723-d09d90136961@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>
> On 1/10/2024 7:02 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * If an architectural event is supported and guaranteed to generate at least
> > + * one "hit, assert that its count is non-zero. If an event isn't supported or
> > + * the test can't guarantee the associated action will occur, then all bets are
> > + * off regarding the count, i.e. no checks can be done.
> > + *
> > + * Sanity check that in all cases, the event doesn't count when it's disabled,
> > + * and that KVM correctly emulates the write of an arbitrary value.
> > + */
> > +static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx,
> > + struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature event,
> > + uint32_t pmc, uint32_t pmc_msr)
> > +{
> > + uint64_t count;
> > +
> > + count = _rdpmc(pmc);
> > + if (!this_pmu_has(event))
> > + goto sanity_checks;
> > +
> > + switch (idx) {
> > + case INTEL_ARCH_INSTRUCTIONS_RETIRED_INDEX:
> > + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(count, NUM_INSNS_RETIRED);
> > + break;
> > + case INTEL_ARCH_BRANCHES_RETIRED_INDEX:
> > + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(count, NUM_BRANCHES);
> > + break;
> > + case INTEL_ARCH_CPU_CYCLES_INDEX:
> > + case INTEL_ARCH_REFERENCE_CYCLES_INDEX:
>
> Since we already support slots event in below guest_test_arch_event(), we
> can add check for INTEL_ARCH_TOPDOWN_SLOTS_INDEX here.
Can that actually be tested at this point, since KVM doesn't support
X86_PMU_FEATURE_TOPDOWN_SLOTS, i.e. this_pmu_has() above should always fail, no?
I'm hesitant to add an assertion of any king without the ability to actually test
the code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-12 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-09 23:02 [PATCH v10 00/29] KVM: x86/pmu: selftests: Fixes and new tests Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 01/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Always treat Fixed counters as available when supported Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 02/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Allow programming events that match unsupported arch events Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 03/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Remove KVM's enumeration of Intel's architectural encodings Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 04/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Setup fixed counters' eventsel during PMU initialization Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 05/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Get eventsel for fixed counters from perf Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 06/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Don't ignore bits 31:30 for RDPMC index on AMD Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 07/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Prioritize VMX interception over #GP on RDPMC due to bad index Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 08/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Apply "fast" RDPMC only to Intel PMUs Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 09/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Disallow "fast" RDPMC for architectural " Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 10/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Treat "fixed" PMU type in RDPMC as index as a value, not flag Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 11/29] KVM: x86/pmu: Explicitly check for RDPMC of unsupported Intel PMC types Sean Christopherson
2024-01-12 3:50 ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 12/29] KVM: selftests: Add vcpu_set_cpuid_property() to set properties Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 13/29] KVM: selftests: Drop the "name" param from KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE() Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 14/29] KVM: selftests: Extend {kvm,this}_pmu_has() to support fixed counters Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 15/29] KVM: selftests: Add pmu.h and lib/pmu.c for common PMU assets Sean Christopherson
2024-01-10 9:21 ` Andrew Jones
2024-01-10 13:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 16/29] KVM: selftests: Test Intel PMU architectural events on gp counters Sean Christopherson
2024-01-12 9:14 ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-12 21:37 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2024-01-15 2:03 ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-30 23:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-01-31 2:11 ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-31 15:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-02-01 1:51 ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 17/29] KVM: selftests: Test Intel PMU architectural events on fixed counters Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 18/29] KVM: selftests: Test consistency of CPUID with num of gp counters Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 19/29] KVM: selftests: Test consistency of CPUID with num of fixed counters Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 20/29] KVM: selftests: Add functional test for Intel's fixed PMU counters Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 21/29] KVM: selftests: Expand PMU counters test to verify LLC events Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 22/29] KVM: selftests: Add a helper to query if the PMU module param is enabled Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 23/29] KVM: selftests: Add helpers to read integer module params Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 24/29] KVM: selftests: Query module param to detect FEP in MSR filtering test Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 25/29] KVM: selftests: Move KVM_FEP macro into common library header Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 26/29] KVM: selftests: Test PMC virtualization with forced emulation Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 27/29] KVM: selftests: Add a forced emulation variation of KVM_ASM_SAFE() Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 28/29] KVM: selftests: Add helpers for safe and safe+forced RDMSR, RDPMC, and XGETBV Sean Christopherson
2024-01-09 23:02 ` [PATCH v10 29/29] KVM: selftests: Extend PMU counters test to validate RDPMC after WRMSR Sean Christopherson
2024-01-12 9:17 ` [PATCH v10 00/29] KVM: x86/pmu: selftests: Fixes and new tests Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-31 0:59 ` 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=ZaGxNsrf_pUHkFiY@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aaronlewis@google.com \
--cc=cloudliang@tencent.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.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