From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D1BC433EF for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BAA49F5F; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:19:39 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@kernel.org Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPeAWUpsLbGI; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816A24A193; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B9349F5F for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:19:37 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjng3CUS0dV4 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EA6B40573 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B31F61200; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:19:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0933C341C2; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:19:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1638785974; bh=CHESru7fiKPCoqHQGng/teCdEOUf816K1QwBoo4hH7w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JoJS5hb4bDOPlpqvJC3CCga69dKOsvNWmk/pPmjDTSRRgMUzCPwHyheIPYtP4hogt djiHA5PoLu/eBD3b/v+XUnBtrVrMGz6e71Bzh5rgqQAghRWfP4obh/98cDv4U6NLRU pIHOqzmgIaKKHW1bU9UmfNlOcTsuU2a4Bi8l9sZW9bvHSy4YcWd9ijvlCM19pkYa9P /DuGaIw1iPxmzrqJUWhrBa5up1bK6HLwVZyI6m0LgvB3nwZyKBt1GbwAhYB3177mpK TskCMWXjoMjrP+Q/bgZORoyqERadNoclpMAN7i7qTVocgUbk5SIOl0Swi50F+jkSqf mjteMK9uYkTEQ== Received: from sofa.misterjones.org ([185.219.108.64] helo=why.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1muB5o-00A8xo-SP; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 10:19:32 +0000 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 10:15:31 +0000 Message-ID: <87zgpe11ks.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Alexandru Elisei Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: arm64: Refuse to run VCPU if the PMU doesn't match the physical CPU In-Reply-To: References: <20211115165041.194884-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <20211115165041.194884-5-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <87bl2ds3ny.wl-maz@kernel.org> <871r386zlf.wl-maz@kernel.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 185.219.108.64 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.elisei@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, peter.maydell@linaro.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: will@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:43:17 +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:21:00PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:12:17 +0000, > > Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 07:35:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:50:41 +0000, > > > > Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Userspace can assign a PMU to a VCPU with the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_SET_PMU > > > > > device ioctl. If the VCPU is scheduled on a physical CPU which has a > > > > > different PMU, the perf events needed to emulate a guest PMU won't be > > > > > scheduled in and the guest performance counters will stop counting. Treat > > > > > it as an userspace error and refuse to run the VCPU in this situation. > > > > > > > > > > The VCPU is flagged as being scheduled on the wrong CPU in vcpu_load(), but > > > > > the flag is cleared when the KVM_RUN enters the non-preemptible section > > > > > instead of in vcpu_put(); this has been done on purpose so the error > > > > > condition is communicated as soon as possible to userspace, otherwise > > > > > vcpu_load() on the wrong CPU followed by a vcpu_put() could clear the flag. > > > > > > > > Can we make this something orthogonal to the PMU, and get userspace to > > > > pick an affinity mask independently of instantiating a PMU? I can > > > > imagine this would also be useful for SPE on asymmetric systems. > > > > > > I actually went this way for the latest version of the SPE series [1] and > > > dropped the explicit userspace ioctl in favor of this mechanism. > > > > > > The expectation is that userspace already knows which CPUs are associated > > > with the chosen PMU (or SPE) when setting the PMU for the VCPU, and having > > > userspace set it explicitely via an ioctl looks like an unnecessary step to > > > me. I don't see other usecases of an explicit ioctl outside of the above > > > two situation (if userspace wants a VCPU to run only on specific CPUs, it > > > can use thread affinity for that), so I decided to drop it. > > > > My problem with that is that if you have (for whatever reason) a set > > of affinities that are not strictly identical for both PMU and SPE, > > and expose both of these to a guest, what do you choose? > > > > As long as you have a single affinity set to take care of, you're > > good. It is when you have several ones that it becomes ugly (as with > > anything involving asymmetric CPUs). > > I thought about it when I decided to do it this way, my solution was to do > a cpumask_and() with the existing VCPU cpumask when setting a VCPU feature > that requires it, and returning an error if we get an empty cpumask, > because userspace is requesting a combination of VCPU features that is not > supported by the hardware. So every new asymetric feature would come with its own potential affinity mask, and KVM would track the restriction of that affinity. I guess that because it can only converge to zero, this is safe by design... One thing I want to make sure is that we can evaluate the mask very early on, and reduce the overhead of that evaluation. > Going with the other solution (user sets the cpumask via an ioctl), KVM > would still have to check against certain combinations of VCPU features > (for SPE it's mandatory, so KVM doesn't trigger an undefined exception, we > could skip the check for PMU, but then what do we gain from the ioctl if > KVM doesn't check that it matches the PMU?), so I don't think we loose > anything by going with the implicit cpumask. > > What do you think? OK, fair enough. Please respin the series (I had a bunch of minor comments), and I'll have another look. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm