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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,T_MIXED_ES, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984CDC04EB8 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C926F20849 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:59:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C926F20849 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FC2K5W5tzDqHJ for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:59:05 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.101.70; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=christoffer.dall@arm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F8Z114KXzDqYj for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:07:45 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFED80D; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:07:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (e113682-lin.copenhagen.arm.com [10.32.144.41]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAE0F3F614; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:07:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:07:42 +0100 From: Christoffer Dall To: Andrew Murray Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] perf/doc: update design.txt for exclude_{host|guest} flags Message-ID: <20181212080742.GA30263@e113682-lin.lund.arm.com> References: <1542363853-13849-1-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com> <1542363853-13849-11-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com> <87pnv00yuf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20181120133202.GH35798@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <87bm5sxqya.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20181211135903.GG13393@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181211135903.GG13393@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:56:40 +1100 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Sascha Hauer , x86@kernel.org, Will Deacon , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "paulus@samba.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Shawn Guo , Joerg Roedel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:59:03PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:06:53PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > [ Reviving old thread. ] > > > > Andrew Murray writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:31:36PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > >> Andrew Murray writes: > > >> > > >> > Update design.txt to reflect the presence of the exclude_host > > >> > and exclude_guest perf flags. > > >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray > > >> > --- > > >> > tools/perf/design.txt | 4 ++++ > > >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > >> > > > >> > diff --git a/tools/perf/design.txt b/tools/perf/design.txt > > >> > index a28dca2..7de7d83 100644 > > >> > --- a/tools/perf/design.txt > > >> > +++ b/tools/perf/design.txt > > >> > @@ -222,6 +222,10 @@ The 'exclude_user', 'exclude_kernel' and 'exclude_hv' bits provide a > > >> > way to request that counting of events be restricted to times when the > > >> > CPU is in user, kernel and/or hypervisor mode. > > >> > > > >> > +Furthermore the 'exclude_host' and 'exclude_guest' bits provide a way > > >> > +to request counting of events restricted to guest and host contexts when > > >> > +using virtualisation. > > >> > > >> How does exclude_host differ from exclude_hv ? > > > > > > I believe exclude_host / exclude_guest are intented to distinguish > > > between host and guest in the hosted hypervisor context (KVM). > > > > OK yeah, from the perf-list man page: > > > > u - user-space counting > > k - kernel counting > > h - hypervisor counting > > I - non idle counting > > G - guest counting (in KVM guests) > > H - host counting (not in KVM guests) > > > > > Whereas exclude_hv allows to distinguish between guest and > > > hypervisor in the bare-metal type hypervisors. > > > > Except that's exactly not how we use them on powerpc :) > > > > We use exclude_hv to exclude "the hypervisor", regardless of whether > > it's KVM or PowerVM (which is a bare-metal hypervisor). > > > > We don't use exclude_host / exclude_guest at all, which I guess is a > > bug, except I didn't know they existed until this thread. > > > > eg, in a KVM guest: > > > > $ perf record -e cycles:G /bin/bash -c "for i in {0..100000}; do :;done" > > $ perf report -D | grep -Fc "dso: [hypervisor]" > > 16 > > > > > > > In the case of arm64 - if VHE extensions are present then the host > > > kernel will run at a higher privilege to the guest kernel, in which > > > case there is no distinction between hypervisor and host so we ignore > > > exclude_hv. But where VHE extensions are not present then the host > > > kernel runs at the same privilege level as the guest and we use a > > > higher privilege level to switch between them - in this case we can > > > use exclude_hv to discount that hypervisor role of switching between > > > guests. > > > > I couldn't find any arm64 perf code using exclude_host/guest at all? > > Correct - but this is in flight as I am currently adding support for this > see [1]. > > > > > And I don't see any x86 code using exclude_hv. > > I can't find any either. > > > > > But maybe that's OK, I just worry this is confusing for users. > > There is some extra context regarding this where exclude_guest/exclude_host > was added, see [2] and where exclude_hv was added, see [3] > > Generally it seems that exclude_guest/exclude_host relies upon switching > counters off/on on guest/host switch code (which works well in the nested > virt case). Whereas exclude_hv tends to rely solely on hardware capability > based on privilege level (which works well in the bare metal case where > the guest doesn't run at same privilege as the host). > > I think from the user perspective exclude_hv allows you to see your overhead > if you are a guest (i.e. work done by bare metal hypervisor associated with > you as the guest). Whereas exclude_guest/exclude_host doesn't allow you to > see events above you (i.e. the kernel hypervisor) if you are the guest... > > At least that's how I read this, I've copied in others that may provide > more authoritative feedback. > > [1] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2018-December/033698.html > [2] https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg53996.html > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/143918/ > I'll try to answer this in a different way, based on previous discussions with Joerg et al. who introduced these flags. Assume no support for nested virtualization as a first approximation: If you are running as a guest: - exclude_hv: stop counting events when the hypervisor runs - exclude_host: has no effect - exclude_guest: has no effect If you are running as a host/hypervisor: - exclude_hv: has no effect - exclude_host: only count events when the guest is running - exclude_guest: only count events when the host is running With nested virtualization, you get the natural union of the above. **This has nothing to do with the design of the hypervisor such as the ARM non-VHE KVM which splits its execution across EL1 and EL2 -- those are both considered host from the point of view of Linux as a hypervisor using KVM, and both considered hypervisor from the point of view of a guest.** Thanks, Christoffer