Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/11] contrib/plugins: add plugin showcasing new dicontinuity related API

[Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>]

On 1/10/25 07:15, Alex Bennée wrote:
> "Julian Ganz" <neither@nut.email> writes:
> 
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> January 9, 2025 at 3:04 PM, "Alex Bennée" wrote:
>>> Julian Ganz <neither@nut.email> writes:
>>>> We recently introduced new plugin API for registration of discontinuity
>>>>   related callbacks. This change introduces a minimal plugin showcasing
>>>>   the new API. It simply counts the occurances of interrupts, exceptions
>>>>   and host calls per CPU and reports the counts when exitting.
>>>>   ---
>>>>   contrib/plugins/meson.build | 3 +-
>>>>   contrib/plugins/traps.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>   create mode 100644 contrib/plugins/traps.c
>>>>
>>>>   diff --git a/contrib/plugins/meson.build b/contrib/plugins/meson.build
>>>>   index 63a32c2b4f..9a3015e1c1 100644
>>>>   --- a/contrib/plugins/meson.build
>>>>   +++ b/contrib/plugins/meson.build
>>>>   @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>>>   contrib_plugins = ['bbv', 'cache', 'cflow', 'drcov', 'execlog', 'hotblocks',
>>>>   - 'hotpages', 'howvec', 'hwprofile', 'ips', 'stoptrigger']
>>>>   + 'hotpages', 'howvec', 'hwprofile', 'ips', 'stoptrigger',
>>>>   + 'traps']
>>>>
>>> I wonder if this is better in tests/tcg/plugins? We need to do something
>>> to ensure it gets covered by CI although we might want to be smarter
>>> about running it together with a test binary that will actually pick up
>>> something.
>>
>> The callback is intended as an example. The patch-series does contain a
>> dedicated testing plugin. And iirc the contrib plugins are now built
>> with the rest of qemu anyway?
> 
> They do - however we generate additional tests with tests/tcg/plugins
> with the existing multiarch linux-user and softmmu check-tcg tests. Its
> a fairly dumb expansion though:
> 
>    # We need to ensure expand the run-plugin-TEST-with-PLUGIN
>    # pre-requistes manually here as we can't use stems to handle it. We
>    # only expand MULTIARCH_TESTS which are common on most of our targets
>    # to avoid an exponential explosion as new tests are added. We also
>    # add some special helpers the run-plugin- rules can use below.
>    # In more, extra tests can be added using ADDITIONAL_PLUGINS_TESTS variable.
> 
>    ifneq ($(MULTIARCH_TESTS),)
>    $(foreach p,$(PLUGINS), \
>            $(foreach t,$(MULTIARCH_TESTS) $(ADDITIONAL_PLUGINS_TESTS),\
>                    $(eval run-plugin-$(t)-with-$(p): $t $p) \
>                    $(eval RUN_TESTS+=run-plugin-$(t)-with-$(p))))
>    endif # MULTIARCH_TESTS
>    endif # CONFIG_PLUGIN
> 
> We also have a hand-hacked test for validating memory instrumentation:
> 
>    # Test plugin memory access instrumentation
>    run-plugin-test-plugin-mem-access-with-libmem.so: \
>            PLUGIN_ARGS=$(COMMA)print-accesses=true
>    run-plugin-test-plugin-mem-access-with-libmem.so: \
>            CHECK_PLUGIN_OUTPUT_COMMAND= \
>            $(SRC_PATH)/tests/tcg/multiarch/check-plugin-output.sh \
>            $(QEMU) $<
> 
>    test-plugin-mem-access: CFLAGS+=-pthread -O0
>    test-plugin-mem-access: LDFLAGS+=-pthread -O0
> 
> That said as I mention in the reply to the cover letter the traps stuff
> might be better exercised with the functional test so could utilise a
> plugin built in contrib just as easily.
> 

I agree, as it was discussed in previous versions, we should add a 
functional test for this. I'm not sure if we should write a custom and 
complicated test, or simply boot and shutdown an existing image, and 
call it a day.

Do you have any opinion on this Alex?

>>
>>>> +QEMU_PLUGIN_EXPORT
>>>>   +int qemu_plugin_install(qemu_plugin_id_t id, const qemu_info_t *info,
>>>>   + int argc, char **argv)
>>>>   +{
>>>>   + if (!info->system_emulation) {
>>>>   + fputs("trap plugin can only be used in system emulation mode.\n",
>>>>   + stderr);
>>>>   + return -1;
>>>>   + }
>>>>   +
>>>>   + max_vcpus = info->system.max_vcpus;
>>>>   + traps = qemu_plugin_scoreboard_new(sizeof(TrapCounters));
>>>>   + qemu_plugin_register_vcpu_init_cb(id, vcpu_init);
>>>>   + qemu_plugin_vcpu_for_each(id, vcpu_init);
>>>>
>>> Hmm at first glances this seems redundant - however I guess this is
>>> covering the use case you load the plugin after the system is up and
>>> running.
>>
>> Yep, but really that was just me being paranoid.
>>
>>> I wonder if you have unearthed a foot-gun in the API that is easy to
>>> fall into? Maybe we should expand qemu_plugin_register_vcpu_init_cb to
>>> call the call back immediately for existing vcpus?
>>
>> Would probably not hurt.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Julian
>