From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>, Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>,
Falcon Thomas <thomas.falcon@intel.com>,
Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>, Yi Lai <yi1.lai@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 7/9] perf/x86/intel: Drop fixed-counter PEBS constraints for baseline PEBS
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:20:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260610082051.GF49951@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260609050222.2458129-8-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 01:02:20PM +0800, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> On SPR guests where pebs_baseline is not advertised, running:
>
> $ ./perf record -e cpu/event=0x00,umask=0x01,i\
> name=INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST/p -c 10000 sleep 1
>
> can trigger:
>
> unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x3f1 ... in\
> intel_pmu_pebs_enable_all()
>
> Root cause:
> SPR-specific PEBS constraints allow fixed-counter scheduling,
> for example INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST on fixed counter 0. In guests without
> pebs_baseline, KVM does not support PEBS sampling on fixed counters,
> so enabling such events reaches an invalid MSR programming path.
>
> Fix:
> Drop fixed-counter entries from the PEBS constraint table. Without
> pebs_baseline, those fixed-counter PEBS events now resolve to empty
> constraints and are not scheduled/enabled, avoiding the warning and the
> broken guest PEBS path.
>
> This is safe because, in pebs_baseline-capable cases, PEBS constraint
> lookup already falls back to non-PEBS constraints when needed, and
> fixed-counter constraints are effectively shared there.
I am confused, this works outside of KVM? (It appears to work fine on my
spr).. so removing this to fix some guest only issue seems wrong.
> Reported-by: Yi Lai <yi1.lai@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c | 13 -------------
> 1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> index cb72af9b61ce..5db15a92017a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> @@ -1447,10 +1447,6 @@ struct event_constraint intel_skl_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> };
>
> struct event_constraint intel_icl_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x01c0, 0x100000000ULL), /* old INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST */
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x0100, 0x100000000ULL), /* INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST */
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x0400, 0x800000000ULL), /* SLOTS */
> -
> INTEL_PLD_CONSTRAINT(0x1cd, 0xff), /* MEM_TRANS_RETIRED.LOAD_LATENCY */
> INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT_DATALA_LD(0x11d0, 0xf), /* MEM_INST_RETIRED.STLB_MISS_LOADS */
> INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT_DATALA_ST(0x12d0, 0xf), /* MEM_INST_RETIRED.STLB_MISS_STORES */
> @@ -1473,9 +1469,6 @@ struct event_constraint intel_icl_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> };
>
> struct event_constraint intel_glc_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x100, 0x100000000ULL), /* INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST */
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x0400, 0x800000000ULL),
> -
> INTEL_FLAGS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xc0, 0xfe),
> INTEL_PLD_CONSTRAINT(0x1cd, 0xfe),
> INTEL_PSD_CONSTRAINT(0x2cd, 0x1),
> @@ -1500,9 +1493,6 @@ struct event_constraint intel_glc_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> };
>
> struct event_constraint intel_lnc_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x100, 0x100000000ULL), /* INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST */
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x0400, 0x800000000ULL),
> -
> INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x012a, 0x1), /* OCR.* events */
> INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x012b, 0x1), /* OCR.* events */
>
> @@ -1534,9 +1524,6 @@ struct event_constraint intel_lnc_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> };
>
> struct event_constraint intel_pnc_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x100, 0x100000000ULL), /* INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST */
> - INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x0400, 0x800000000ULL),
> -
> INTEL_HYBRID_LDLAT_CONSTRAINT(0x1cd, 0xfc),
> INTEL_HYBRID_STLAT_CONSTRAINT(0x2cd, 0x3),
> INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT_DATALA_LD(0x11d0, 0xf), /* MEM_INST_RETIRED.STLB_MISS_LOADS */
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-10 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-09 5:02 [Patch v2 0/9] perf/x86: Miscellaneous PMU bug fixes Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 1/9] perf/x86/intel: Remove anythread_deprecated bit from perf_capabilities Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 2/9] perf/x86: Introduce is_x86_pmu() helper Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 3/9] perf/x86: Update cap_user_rdpmc base on rdpmc user disable state Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-10 1:47 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 4/9] perf/x86/intel: Fallback to sw branch type decoding if no hw decoding Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-09 10:04 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 14:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-10 1:53 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 5/9] perf/x86/intel: Drop LBR entries whose privilege level mismatches br_sel Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:21 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-09 9:40 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 14:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-10 1:57 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 6/9] perf/x86/intel: Validate return value of intel_pmu_init_hybrid() Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:25 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-09 9:44 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-10 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-10 8:34 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 7/9] perf/x86/intel: Drop fixed-counter PEBS constraints for baseline PEBS Dapeng Mi
2026-06-10 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-06-10 8:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-10 8:50 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-10 11:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-10 11:42 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 8/9] perf/core: Fix kernel register info leak via hardware skid Dapeng Mi
2026-06-10 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-09 5:02 ` [Patch v2 9/9] perf/core: Check kernel access when kernel callchains are requested Dapeng Mi
2026-06-09 5:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-09 9:49 ` 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=20260610082051.GF49951@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
--cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
--cc=yi1.lai@intel.com \
--cc=zide.chen@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