Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test

[Eric Auger <eauger@redhat.com>]

Hi Shaoqin,

On 11/29/23 08:27, Shaoqin Huang wrote:
> Introduce pmu_event_filter_test for arm64 platforms. The test configures
> PMUv3 for a vCPU, and sets different pmu event filters for the vCPU, and
> check if the guest can use those events which user allow and can't use
> those events which use deny.
> 
> This test refactor the create_vpmu_vm() and make it a wrapper for
> __create_vpmu_vm(), which allows some extra init code before
> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT.
> 
> And this test use the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER attribute to set the
> pmu event filter in KVM. And choose to filter two common event
> branches_retired and instructions_retired, and let guest use the two
> events in pmu. And check if the result is expected.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   1 +
>  .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c       | 231 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h      |   4 +
>  .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c  |  14 +-
>  4 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> index b60852c222ac..5f126e1a1dbf 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/arch_timer
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/debug-exceptions
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/hypercalls
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/page_fault_test
> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/psci_test
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/set_id_regs
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/smccc_filter
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0e652fbdb37a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * pmu_event_filter_test - Test user limit pmu event for guest.
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc.
> + *
> + * This test checks if the guest only see the limited pmu event that userspace
> + * sets, if the guest can use those events which user allow, and if the guest
> + * can't use those events which user deny.
> + * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER
> + * is supported on the host.
> + */
> +#include <kvm_util.h>
> +#include <processor.h>
> +#include <vgic.h>
> +#include <vpmu.h>
> +#include <test_util.h>
> +#include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h>
> +
> +struct {
> +	uint64_t branches_retired;
> +	uint64_t instructions_retired;
> +} pmc_results;
> +
> +static struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm;
> +static uint64_t pmceid0;
> +
> +#define FILTER_NR 10
> +
> +struct test_desc {
> +	const char *name;
> +	void (*check_result)(void);
> +	struct kvm_pmu_event_filter filter[FILTER_NR];
> +};
> +> +#define __DEFINE_FILTER(base, num, act)		\
> +	((struct kvm_pmu_event_filter) {	\
> +		.base_event	= base,		\
> +		.nevents	= num,		\
> +		.action		= act,		\
> +	})
> +
> +#define DEFINE_FILTER(base, act) __DEFINE_FILTER(base, 1, act)
> +
> +#define EMPTY_FILTER	{ 0 }
> +
> +#define SW_INCR		0x0
> +#define INST_RETIRED	0x8
> +#define BR_RETIRED	0x21
> +
> +#define NUM_BRANCHES	10
> +
> +static void run_and_measure_loop(void)
> +{
> +	asm volatile(
> +		"	mov	x10, %[loop]\n"
> +		"1:	sub	x10, x10, #1\n"
> +		"	cmp	x10, #0x0\n"
> +		"	b.gt	1b\n"
> +		:
> +		: [loop] "r" (NUM_BRANCHES)
> +		: "x10", "cc");
> +}
> +
> +static void guest_code(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0);
> +
> +	pmu_disable_reset();
> +
> +	write_pmevtypern(0, BR_RETIRED);
> +	write_pmevtypern(1, INST_RETIRED);
> +	enable_counter(0);
> +	enable_counter(1);
> +	write_sysreg(pmcr | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E, pmcr_el0);
> +
> +	run_and_measure_loop();
> +
> +	write_sysreg(pmcr, pmcr_el0);
> +
> +	pmc_results.branches_retired = read_sysreg(pmevcntr0_el0);
> +	pmc_results.instructions_retired = read_sysreg(pmevcntr1_el0);
> +
> +	GUEST_DONE();
> +}
> +
> +static void guest_get_pmceid0(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t pmceid0 = read_sysreg(pmceid0_el0);
> +
> +	GUEST_PRINTF("%lx\n", pmceid0);
> +
> +	GUEST_DONE();
> +}
> +
> +static void pmu_event_filter_init(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_device_attr attr = {
> +		.group	= KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
> +		.attr	= KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER,
> +	};
> +	struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter = (struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *)arg;
> +
> +	while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
> +		attr.addr = (uint64_t)filter;
> +		vcpu_ioctl(vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &attr);
> +		filter++;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(void *guest_code,
> +				       struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter)
> +{
> +	vpmu_vm = __create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, pmu_event_filter_init, filter);
> +}
> +
> +static void run_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	struct ucall uc;
> +
> +	while (1) {
> +		vcpu_run(vcpu);
> +		switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> +		case UCALL_DONE:
> +			return;
> +		case UCALL_PRINTF:
> +			pmceid0 = strtoll(uc.buffer, NULL, 16);
> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void check_pmc_counting(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t br = pmc_results.branches_retired;
> +	uint64_t ir = pmc_results.instructions_retired;
> +
> +	TEST_ASSERT(br && br == NUM_BRANCHES, "Branch instructions retired = "
> +		    "%lu (expected %u)", br, NUM_BRANCHES);
have you tested on several machines? My experience with some events
(MEM_ACCESS for instance) is that you have variance (sometimes
significant) on some event count. I am a little bit scared that having
this br == NUM_BRANCHES check without taking into account some margin
will cause failures on some HW.

in v1 I suggested to read to PMCEID* in a guest code to check if the
event is supported. This method would also have the benefice to allow
testing more complex filter range combinations.
> +	TEST_ASSERT(ir, "Instructions retired = %lu (expected > 0)", ir);
> +}
> +
> +static void check_pmc_not_counting(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t br = pmc_results.branches_retired;
> +	uint64_t ir = pmc_results.instructions_retired;
> +
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!br, "Branch instructions retired = %lu (expected 0)", br);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!ir, "Instructions retired = %lu (expected 0)", ir);
> +}
> +
> +static void run_vcpu_and_sync_pmc_results(void)
> +{
> +	memset(&pmc_results, 0, sizeof(pmc_results));
> +	sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm->vm, pmc_results);
> +
> +	run_vcpu(vpmu_vm->vcpu);
> +
> +	sync_global_from_guest(vpmu_vm->vm, pmc_results);
> +}
> +
> +static void run_test(struct test_desc *t)
> +{
> +	pr_debug("Test: %s\n", t->name);
> +
> +	create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(guest_code, t->filter);
> +
> +	run_vcpu_and_sync_pmc_results();
> +
> +	t->check_result();
> +
> +	destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm);
> +}
> +
> +static struct test_desc tests[] = {
> +	{"without_filter", check_pmc_counting, { EMPTY_FILTER }},
> +	{"member_allow_filter", check_pmc_counting,
> +	 {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 0), DEFINE_FILTER(INST_RETIRED, 0),
Note the doc says that Event 0 (SW_INCR) is never filtered, as it
doesn't count a hardware event


I would use the defines exposed in the uapi
> +#define KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW	0
> +#define KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY	1
> +	  DEFINE_FILTER(BR_RETIRED, 0), EMPTY_FILTER}},
> +	{"member_deny_filter", check_pmc_not_counting,
> +	 {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 1), DEFINE_FILTER(INST_RETIRED, 1),
what is the purpose of SW_INCR. YOu do not seem to test it anyway?
> +	  DEFINE_FILTER(BR_RETIRED, 1), EMPTY_FILTER}},
> +	{"not_member_deny_filter", check_pmc_counting,
> +	 {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 1), EMPTY_FILTER}},
> +	{"not_member_allow_filter", check_pmc_not_counting,
> +	 {DEFINE_FILTER(SW_INCR, 0), EMPTY_FILTER}},
> +	{ 0 }
> +};
> +
> +static void for_each_test(void)
> +{
> +	struct test_desc *t;
> +
> +	for (t = &tests[0]; t->name; t++)
> +		run_test(t);
> +}
> +
> +static bool kvm_supports_pmu_event_filter(void)
> +{
> +	int r;
> +
> +	vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code);
> +
> +	r = __kvm_has_device_attr(vpmu_vm->vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
> +				  KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER);
you can use __vcpu_has_device_attr directly
> +
> +	destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm);
> +	return !r;
> +}
> +
> +static bool host_pmu_supports_events(void)
> +{
> +	vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_get_pmceid0);
> +
> +	run_vcpu(vpmu_vm->vcpu);
> +
> +	destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm);
> +
> +	return pmceid0 & (BR_RETIRED | INST_RETIRED);
this will return true if either event is supported. I suspect this is
not what you want.
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> +	TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3));
> +	TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_supports_pmu_event_filter());
> +	TEST_REQUIRE(host_pmu_supports_events());
> +
> +	for_each_test();
> +}
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h
> index 644dae3814b5..f103d0824f8a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ struct vpmu_vm {
>  	int gic_fd;
>  };
>  
> +struct vpmu_vm *__create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code,
> +				 void (*init_pmu)(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg),
> +				 void *arg);
> +
>  struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code);
>  
>  void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c
> index b3de8fdc555e..76ea03d607f1 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vpmu.c
> @@ -7,8 +7,9 @@
>  #include <vpmu.h>
>  #include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h>
>  
> -/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */
> -struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
> +struct vpmu_vm *__create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code,
> +				 void (*init_pmu)(struct vpmu_vm *vm, void *arg),
> +				 void *arg)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
>  	uint8_t pmuver;
> @@ -50,12 +51,21 @@ struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
>  		    "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver);
>  
>  	/* Initialize vPMU */
> +	if (init_pmu)
> +		init_pmu(vpmu_vm, arg);
> +
>  	vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr);
>  	vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr);
>  
>  	return vpmu_vm;
>  }
>  
> +/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */
> +struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
> +{
> +	return __create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL, NULL);
> +}
> +
>  void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm)
>  {
>  	close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd);

Thanks

Eric


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel