From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
thomas.lendacky@amd.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
like.xu@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a dedicated counter for guest PEBS
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 16:05:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200309150526.GI12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <97ce1ba4-d75a-8db2-ea2f-7d334942b4e6@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:12:42AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > Suppose your KVM thing claims counter 0/2 (ICL/SKL) for some random PEBS
> > event, and then the host wants to use PREC_DIST.. Then one of them will
> > be screwed for no reason what so ever.
> >
>
> The multiplexing should be triggered.
>
> For host, if both user A and user B requires PREC_DIST, the multiplexing
> should be triggered for them.
> Now, the user B is KVM. I don't think there is difference. The multiplexing
> should still be triggered. Why it is screwed?
Becuase if KVM isn't PREC_DIST we should be able to reschedule it to a
different counter.
> > How is that not destroying scheduling freedom? Any other situation we'd
> > have moved the !PREC_DIST PEBS event to another counter.
> >
>
> All counters are equivalent for them. It doesn't matter if we move it to
> another counter. There is no impact for the user.
But we cannot move it to another counter, because you're pinning it.
> In the new proposal, KVM user is treated the same as other host events with
> event constraint. The scheduler is free to choose whether or not to assign a
> counter for it.
That's what it does, I understand that. I'm saying that that is creating
artificial contention.
Why is this needed anyway? Can't we force the guest to flush and then
move it over to a new counter?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-09 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-05 17:56 [PATCH v1 00/11] PEBS virtualization enabling via DS Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 16:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-05 17:56 ` [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a dedicated counter for guest PEBS Luwei Kang
2020-03-06 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-06 14:42 ` Liang, Kan
2020-03-09 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-09 13:12 ` Liang, Kan
2020-03-09 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-03-09 19:28 ` Liang, Kan
2020-03-12 10:28 ` Kang, Luwei
2020-03-26 14:03 ` Liang, Kan
2020-04-07 12:34 ` Kang, Luwei
2020-06-12 5:28 ` Kang, Luwei
2020-06-19 9:30 ` Kang, Luwei
2020-08-20 3:32 ` Like Xu
2020-03-09 15:44 ` Andi Kleen
2020-03-05 17:56 ` [PATCH v1 02/11] perf/x86/ds: Handle guest PEBS events overflow and inject fake PMI Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:56 ` [PATCH v1 03/11] perf/x86: Expose a function to disable auto-reload Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:56 ` [PATCH v1 04/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Decouple event enablement from event creation Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:56 ` [PATCH v1 05/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Add support to reprogram PEBS event for guest counters Luwei Kang
2020-03-06 16:28 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-06 16:28 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-09 0:58 ` Xu, Like
2020-03-09 0:58 ` Xu, Like
2020-03-05 17:57 ` [PATCH v1 06/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Implement is_pebs_via_ds_supported pmu ops Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:57 ` [PATCH v1 07/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Expose CPUIDs feature bits PDCM, DS, DTES64 Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:57 ` [PATCH v1 08/11] KVM: x86/pmu: PEBS MSRs emulation Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:57 ` [PATCH v1 09/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Expose PEBS feature to guest Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:57 ` [PATCH v1 10/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Introduce the mask value for fixed counter Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 17:57 ` [PATCH v1 11/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Adaptive PEBS virtualization enabling Luwei Kang
2020-03-05 22:48 ` [PATCH v1 00/11] PEBS virtualization enabling via DS Andi Kleen
2020-03-06 5:37 ` Kang, Luwei
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=20200309150526.GI12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=like.xu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luwei.kang@intel.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.