From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
Cc: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.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, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: arm64: Add KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_SET_PMU attribute
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:44:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bl1r14po.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YbDNPrDOriI5FjfS@monolith.localdoman>
On Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:20:30 +0000,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:25:58PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:23:44 +0000,
> > Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This makes me wonder. Should KVM enforce having userspace either not
> > > setting the PMU for any VCPU, either setting it for all VCPUs? I think this
> > > would be a good idea and will reduce complexity in the long run. I also
> > > don't see a use case for userspace choosing to set the PMU for a subset of
> > > VCPUs, leaving the other VCPUs with the default behaviour.
> >
> > Indeed. As much as I'm happy to expose a PMU to a guest on an
> > asymmetric system, I really do not want the asymmetry in the guest
> > itself. So this should be an all or nothing behaviour.
>
> From what I can tell, the only asymmetry that can be exposed to a guest as
> a result of the series is the number of events supported on a VCPU.
Not only. It means that the events are counting different things. It
isn't only about pmuver, which is only about the architectural
revision implemented by the PMU. If you start assigning two different
PMUs (in the perf sense) to a guest, you open the Pandora box of
having to deal with all the subtle nonsense that asymmetric systems
bring. What about event filtering, for example?
> I don't like the idea of forcing userspace to set the *same* PMU for all
> VCPUs, as that would severely limit running VMs with PMU on asymmetric
> systems.
On the contrary, I am *very* happy to limit a VM to a single PMU (and
thus CPU) type on these systems. Really.
> Even if KVM forces to set a PMU (does not have to be the same PMU) for all
> VCPUs, that still does not look like the correct solution for me, because
> userspace can set PMUs with different number of events.
I don't understand what you mean. If you associate a single PMU type
to the guest, that's all the guest sees.
> What I can try is to make kvm->arch.pmuver the minimum version of all the
> VCPU PMUs and the implict PMU. I'll give that a go in the next iteration.
I really don't think we need any of this.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-08 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-06 17:02 [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: arm64: Improve PMU support on heterogeneous systems Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-06 17:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] perf: Fix wrong name in comment for struct perf_cpu_context Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-06 17:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: Keep a list of probed PMUs Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-06 17:02 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: arm64: Add KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_SET_PMU attribute Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 3:13 ` Reiji Watanabe
2021-12-08 12:23 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 12:43 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 14:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-12-08 15:20 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 15:44 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-12-08 16:11 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 16:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-12-06 17:02 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: arm64: Refuse to run VCPU if the PMU doesn't match the physical CPU Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-07 14:17 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 7:54 ` Reiji Watanabe
2021-12-08 10:38 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-13 7:40 ` Reiji Watanabe
2021-12-08 9:56 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-12-08 11:18 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-08 2:36 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: arm64: Improve PMU support on heterogeneous systems Reiji Watanabe
2021-12-08 8:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-12-13 6:36 ` Reiji Watanabe
2021-12-13 11:14 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-12-14 6:24 ` Reiji Watanabe
2021-12-14 11:56 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-12-15 6:47 ` Reiji Watanabe
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=87bl1r14po.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).