Re: [RFC] perf_events: exclude_guest impact on time_enabled/time_running

["Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>]

On 2024-06-06 3:57 a.m., Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> In the context of the new vPMU passthru patch series, we have to look
> closer at the definition and implementation of the exclude_guest
> filter in the perf_event_attr structure. This filter has been in the
> kernel for many years. See patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240506053020.3911940-8-mizhang@google.com/
> 
> The presumed  definition of the filter is that the user does not want
> the event to count while the processor is running in guest mode (i.e.,
> inside the virtual machine guest OS or guest user code).
> 
> The perf tool sets is by default on all core PMU events:
> $ perf stat -vv -e cycles sleep 0
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> perf_event_attr:
>   size                             112
>   sample_type                      IDENTIFIER
>   read_format                      TOTAL_TIME_ENABLED|TOTAL_TIME_RUNNING
>   disabled                         1
>   inherit                          1
>   enable_on_exec                   1
>   exclude_guest                    1
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In the kernel, the way this is treated differs between AMD and Intel because AMD
> does provide a hardware filter for guest vs. host in the PMU counters
> whereas Intel
> does not. For the latter, the  kernel simply disables the event in the
> hardware counters,
> i.e., the event is not descheduled.  Both approaches produce pretty
> much the same
> desired effect, the event is not counted while in guest mode.
> 
> The issue I would like to raise has to do with the effects on
> time_enabled and time_running
> for exclude_guest=1 events.
> 
> Given the event is not scheduled out while in guest mode, even though
> it is stopped, both time_enabled and time_running continue ticking
> while in guest mode.  If a measurement is 10s
> long but only 5s are in non-guest mode, then time_enabled=10s,
> time_running=10s. The count
> represents 10s worth of non guest mode, of which only 5s were really
> actively monitoring, but
> the user has no way of determining this.


For the latest design/implementation, only the exclude_guest=1 host
event can be successfully created for the case.
The end user should not expect that anything is collected in the guest
mode. So both the time_enabled and the time_running will be 5s.

> 
> If we look at vPMU passthru, the host event must have exclude_guest=1
> to avoid going into
> an error state on context switch to the vCPU thread (with vPMU
> enabled). 

That's the design in V1. There is no error state anymore in V2 and later
as suggested by Sean.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZhmIrQQVgblrhCZs@google.com/

The VM cannot be created if there are host events with exclude_guest=0.
If a VM has been created, user cannot create an event with
exclude_guest=0. So nothing will be moved to an error state on context
switch to the vCPU thread.

> But this time,
> the event is scheduled out, that means that time_enabled keeps
> counting, but time_running
> stops. On context switch back in, the host event is scheduled again
> and time_running restarts
> ticking. For a 10s measurement, where 5s here in the guest, the event
> will come out with
> time_enabled=10s, time_running=5s, and the tool will scale it up
> because it thinks the event
> was multiplexed, when in fact it was not. This is not the intended
> outcome here. The tool should
> not scale the count, it was not multiplexed, it was descheduled
> because the filter forced it out.
> Note that if the event had been multiplexed while running on the host,
> then the scaling would be
> appropriate.

The scaling will not happen, since both time_enabled and time_running
should be the same when there are enough counter resources.

> 
> In that case, I argue, time_running should be updated to cover the
> time the event was not running. That would bring us back to the case I
> was describing earlier.
> 
> It boils down to the exact definition of exclude_guest and expected
> impact on time_enabled
> and time_running. Then, with or without vPMU passthru, we can fix the
> kernel to ensure a
> uniform behavior.

I think the time_enabled should be the one that has a controversial
definition.
Should the time in the guest mode count as the enabled time for an host
event that explicitly sets the exclude_guest=1?

I think the answer is NO. So I implemented it in the code.

> 
> What are your thoughts on this problem?
> 

Peter, please share your thoughts. We want to make sure the design is on
the right track.

Thanks,
Kan