public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
	Zhang Xiong <xiong.y.zhang@intel.com>,
	Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>,
	Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
	Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 08/11] x86: pmu: Improve instruction and branches events verification
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 06:14:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgO5YgWK3eX-zlgc@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240103031409.2504051-9-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> If HW supports GLOBAL_CTRL MSR, enabling and disabling PMCs are moved in
> __precise_count_loop(). Thus, instructions and branches events can be
> verified against a precise count instead of a rough range.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  x86/pmu.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
> index 88b89ad889b9..b764827c1c3d 100644
> --- a/x86/pmu.c
> +++ b/x86/pmu.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@
>  	"nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop;\n\t"	\
>  	"loop 1b;\n\t"
>  
> +/*Enable GLOBAL_CTRL + disable GLOBAL_CTRL instructions */
> +#define PRECISE_EXTRA_INSTRNS  (2 + 4)
> +#define PRECISE_LOOP_INSTRNS   (N * LOOP_INSTRNS + PRECISE_EXTRA_INSTRNS)
> +#define PRECISE_LOOP_BRANCHES  (N)
>  #define PRECISE_LOOP_ASM						\
>  	"wrmsr;\n\t"							\
>  	"mov %%ecx, %%edi; mov %%ebx, %%ecx;\n\t"			\
> @@ -107,6 +111,24 @@ static inline void loop(u64 cntrs)
>  		__precise_count_loop(cntrs);
>  }
>  
> +static void adjust_events_range(struct pmu_event *gp_events, int branch_idx)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * If HW supports GLOBAL_CTRL MSR, enabling and disabling PMCs are
> +	 * moved in __precise_count_loop(). Thus, instructions and branches
> +	 * events can be verified against a precise count instead of a rough
> +	 * range.
> +	 */
> +	if (this_cpu_has_perf_global_ctrl()) {
> +		/* instructions event */
> +		gp_events[0].min = PRECISE_LOOP_INSTRNS;
> +		gp_events[0].max = PRECISE_LOOP_INSTRNS;
> +		/* branches event */
> +		gp_events[branch_idx].min = PRECISE_LOOP_BRANCHES;
> +		gp_events[branch_idx].max = PRECISE_LOOP_BRANCHES;
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  volatile uint64_t irq_received;
>  
>  static void cnt_overflow(isr_regs_t *regs)
> @@ -771,6 +793,7 @@ static void check_invalid_rdpmc_gp(void)
>  
>  int main(int ac, char **av)
>  {
> +	int branch_idx;
>  	setup_vm();
>  	handle_irq(PMI_VECTOR, cnt_overflow);
>  	buf = malloc(N*64);
> @@ -784,13 +807,16 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>  		}
>  		gp_events = (struct pmu_event *)intel_gp_events;
>  		gp_events_size = sizeof(intel_gp_events)/sizeof(intel_gp_events[0]);
> +		branch_idx = 5;

This (and the follow up one) hardcoded index is hacky and more
importantly, error prone especially when code get refactored later.
Please use a proper way via macro? Eg., checking
INTEL_ARCH_BRANCHES_RETIRED_INDEX in pmu_counters_test.c might be a good
one.
>  		report_prefix_push("Intel");
>  		set_ref_cycle_expectations();
>  	} else {
>  		gp_events_size = sizeof(amd_gp_events)/sizeof(amd_gp_events[0]);
>  		gp_events = (struct pmu_event *)amd_gp_events;
> +		branch_idx = 2;
>  		report_prefix_push("AMD");
>  	}
> +	adjust_events_range(gp_events, branch_idx);
>  
>  	printf("PMU version:         %d\n", pmu.version);
>  	printf("GP counters:         %d\n", pmu.nr_gp_counters);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-27  6:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-03  3:13 [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 00/11] pmu test bugs fix and improvements Dapeng Mi
2024-01-03  3:13 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 01/11] x86: pmu: Remove duplicate code in pmu_init() Dapeng Mi
2024-03-28  1:19   ` Yang, Weijiang
2024-03-28  1:21     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 02/11] x86: pmu: Enlarge cnt[] length to 64 in check_counters_many() Dapeng Mi
2024-03-25 21:41   ` Jim Mattson
2024-03-27  6:40     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 03/11] x86: pmu: Add asserts to warn inconsistent fixed events and counters Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  5:30   ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-03-27  6:43     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-03-27 13:11   ` Jim Mattson
2024-03-28  9:29     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 04/11] x86: pmu: Switch instructions and core cycles events sequence Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  5:36   ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-03-27  8:54     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-03-27 17:06       ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-03-28 10:09         ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 05/11] x86: pmu: Refine fixed_events[] names Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  5:38   ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 06/11] x86: pmu: Remove blank line and redundant space Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  5:38   ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-03-28  1:23   ` Yang, Weijiang
2024-03-28 10:12     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 07/11] x86: pmu: Enable and disable PMCs in loop() asm blob Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  6:07   ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-03-27  8:55     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-04-08 23:17       ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-04-09  0:28         ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 08/11] x86: pmu: Improve instruction and branches events verification Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  6:14   ` Mingwei Zhang [this message]
2024-03-27  8:59     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 09/11] x86: pmu: Improve LLC misses event verification Dapeng Mi
2024-03-27  6:23   ` Mingwei Zhang
2024-03-27  9:18     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-03-27 15:20   ` Yang, Weijiang
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 10/11] x86: pmu: Add IBPB indirect jump asm blob Dapeng Mi
2024-01-03  3:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 11/11] x86: pmu: Improve branch misses event verification Dapeng Mi
2024-01-24  8:18 ` [kvm-unit-tests Patch v3 00/11] pmu test bugs fix and improvements Mi, Dapeng

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=ZgO5YgWK3eX-zlgc@google.com \
    --to=mizhang@google.com \
    --cc=cloudliang@tencent.com \
    --cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
    --cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=like.xu.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=xiong.y.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhenyuw@linux.intel.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