Re: REGRESSION on linux-next (next-20250919)

["Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>]

On 9/30/2025 11:09 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>> On 9/30/2025 1:30 PM, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
>>> Hello Sean,
>>>
>>> Hope you are doing well. I am Chaitanya from the linux graphics team in 
>>> Intel.
>>>
>>> This mail is regarding a regression we are seeing in our CI runs[1] on
>>> linux-next repository.
>>>
>>> Since the version next-20250919 [2], we are seeing the following regression
>>>
>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>> <4>[   10.973827] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> <4>[   10.973841] WARNING: arch/x86/events/core.c:3089 at 
>>> perf_get_x86_pmu_capability+0xd/0xc0, CPU#15: (udev-worker)/386
>>> ...
>>> <4>[   10.974028] Call Trace:
>>> <4>[   10.974030]  <TASK>
>>> <4>[   10.974033]  ? kvm_init_pmu_capability+0x2b/0x190 [kvm]
>>> <4>[   10.974154]  kvm_x86_vendor_init+0x1b0/0x1a40 [kvm]
>>> <4>[   10.974248]  vmx_init+0xdb/0x260 [kvm_intel]
>>> <4>[   10.974278]  ? __pfx_vt_init+0x10/0x10 [kvm_intel]
>>> <4>[   10.974296]  vt_init+0x12/0x9d0 [kvm_intel]
>>> <4>[   10.974309]  ? __pfx_vt_init+0x10/0x10 [kvm_intel]
>>> <4>[   10.974322]  do_one_initcall+0x60/0x3f0
>>> <4>[   10.974335]  do_init_module+0x97/0x2b0
>>> <4>[   10.974345]  load_module+0x2d08/0x2e30
>>> <4>[   10.974349]  ? __kernel_read+0x158/0x2f0
>>> <4>[   10.974370]  ? kernel_read_file+0x2b1/0x320
>>> <4>[   10.974381]  init_module_from_file+0x96/0xe0
>>> <4>[   10.974384]  ? init_module_from_file+0x96/0xe0
>>> <4>[   10.974399]  idempotent_init_module+0x117/0x330
>>> <4>[   10.974415]  __x64_sys_finit_module+0x73/0xe0
>>> ...
>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>> Details log can be found in [3].
>>>
>>> After bisecting the tree, the following patch [4] seems to be the first 
>>> "bad" commit
>>>
>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>  From 51f34b1e650fc5843530266cea4341750bd1ae37 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>
>>> From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 12:56:39 -0700
>>>
>>> Subject: KVM: x86/pmu: Snapshot host (i.e. perf's) reported PMU capabilities
>>>
>>> Take a snapshot of the unadulterated PMU capabilities provided by perf so
>>> that KVM can compare guest vPMU capabilities against hardware capabilities
>>> when determining whether or not to intercept PMU MSRs (and RDPMC).
>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>
>>> We also verified that if we revert the patch the issue is not seen.
>>>
>>> Could you please check why the patch causes this regression and provide 
>>> a fix if necessary?
>> Hi Chaitanya,
>>
>> I suppose you found this warning on a hybrid client platform, right? It
>> looks the warning is triggered by the below WARN_ON_ONCE() in
>> perf_get_x86_pmu_capability() function.
>>
>>   if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU)) ||
>>         !x86_pmu_initialized()) {
>>         memset(cap, 0, sizeof(*cap));
>>         return;
>>     }
>>
>> The below change should fix it (just building, not test it). I would run a
>> full scope vPMU test after I come back from China national day's holiday.
> I have access to a hybrid system, I'll also double check there (though I'm 99.9%
> certain you've got it right).
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> index cebce7094de8..6d87c25226d8 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> @@ -108,8 +108,6 @@ void kvm_init_pmu_capability(struct kvm_pmu_ops *pmu_ops)
>>         bool is_intel = boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL;
>>         int min_nr_gp_ctrs = pmu_ops->MIN_NR_GP_COUNTERS;
>>
>> -       perf_get_x86_pmu_capability(&kvm_host_pmu);
>> -
>>         /*
>>          * Hybrid PMUs don't play nice with virtualization without careful
>>          * configuration by userspace, and KVM's APIs for reporting supported
>> @@ -120,6 +118,8 @@ void kvm_init_pmu_capability(struct kvm_pmu_ops *pmu_ops)
>>                 enable_pmu = false;
>>
>>         if (enable_pmu) {
>> +               perf_get_x86_pmu_capability(&kvm_host_pmu);
>> +
>>                 /*
>>                  * WARN if perf did NOT disable hardware PMU if the number of
>>                  * architecturally required GP counters aren't present, i.e. if
> If we go this route, then the !enable_pmu path should explicitly zero kvm_host_pmu
> so that the behavior is consistent userspace loads kvm.ko with enable_pmu=0,
> versus enable_pmu being cleared because of lack of support.
>
> 	if (!enable_pmu) {
> 		memset(&kvm_host_pmu, 0, sizeof(kvm_host_pmu));
> 		memset(&kvm_pmu_cap, 0, sizeof(kvm_pmu_cap));
> 		return;
> 	}
>
> The alternative would be keep kvm_host_pmu valid at all times for !HYBRID, which
> is what I intended with the bad patch, but that too would lead to inconsistent
> behavior.  So I think it makes sense to go with Dapeng's approach; we can always
> revisit this if some future thing in KVM _needs_ kvm_host_pmu even with enable_pmu=0. 
>
> 	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU)) {
> 		enable_pmu = false;
> 		memset(&kvm_host_pmu, 0, sizeof(kvm_host_pmu));
> 	} else {
> 		perf_get_x86_pmu_capability(&kvm_host_pmu);
> 	}

Yeah, it looks better. We should decouple "enable_pmu" and "kvm_host_pmu"
as the initial design. Thanks.


>