All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, like.xu.linux@gmail.com,
	kan.liang@linux.intel.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com,
	Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] KVM: vmx/pmu: Emulate MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH for guest Arch LBR
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 20:25:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9QzLHNxS4K81SfU@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221125040604.5051-6-weijiang.yang@intel.com>

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> Write to MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH has side-effect, all LBR entries are reset
> to 0. Kernel PMU driver can leverage this effect to do fask reset to
> LBR record MSRs. KVM allows guest to achieve it when Arch LBR records
> MSRs are passed through to the guest.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  3 ++
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c    | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 70af7240a1d5..2dba2fdd9cdc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -571,6 +571,9 @@ struct kvm_pmu {
>  	 * redundant check before cleanup if guest don't use vPMU at all.
>  	 */
>  	u8 event_count;
> +
> +	/* Guest arch lbr depth supported by KVM. */
> +	u64 kvm_arch_lbr_depth;

There is zero reason to store this separately.  KVM already records the allowed
depth in kvm_vcpu.lbr_desc.records.nr.

>  };
>  
>  struct kvm_pmu_ops;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> index 905673228932..0c78cb4b72be 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ static bool intel_pmu_is_valid_lbr_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index)
>  	    (index == MSR_LBR_SELECT || index == MSR_LBR_TOS))
>  		return true;
>  
> +	if (index == MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH)
> +		return kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&

Like the previous patch, since intel_pmu_lbr_is_enabled() effectively serves as
a generic kvm_cpu_cap_has(LBRS) check, this can be distilled to:

	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR)) {
		if (index == MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH || index == MSR_ARCH_LBR_CTL)
			return true;
	} else {
		if (index == MSR_LBR_SELECT || index == MSR_LBR_TOS))
			return true;
	}

> +		       guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR);
> +
>  	if ((index >= records->from && index < records->from + records->nr) ||
>  	    (index >= records->to && index < records->to + records->nr))
>  		return true;
> @@ -345,6 +349,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
>  	struct kvm_pmc *pmc;
> +	struct lbr_desc *lbr_desc = vcpu_to_lbr_desc(vcpu);
>  	u32 msr = msr_info->index;
>  
>  	switch (msr) {
> @@ -369,6 +374,9 @@ static int intel_pmu_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>  	case MSR_PEBS_DATA_CFG:
>  		msr_info->data = pmu->pebs_data_cfg;
>  		return 0;
> +	case MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH:
> +		msr_info->data = lbr_desc->records.nr;
> +		return 0;
>  	default:
>  		if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0)) ||
>  		    (pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PMC0))) {
> @@ -395,6 +403,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
>  	struct kvm_pmc *pmc;
> +	struct lbr_desc *lbr_desc = vcpu_to_lbr_desc(vcpu);
>  	u32 msr = msr_info->index;
>  	u64 data = msr_info->data;
>  	u64 reserved_bits, diff;
> @@ -456,6 +465,24 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>  			return 0;
>  		}
>  		break;
> +	case MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH:
> +		if (!pmu->kvm_arch_lbr_depth && !msr_info->host_initiated)

Don't invent a new check, just prevent KVM from reaching this path via the
existing intel_pmu_lbr_is_enabled().

> +			return 1;
> +		/*
> +		 * When guest/host depth are different, the handling would be tricky,
> +		 * so only max depth is supported for both host and guest.
> +		 */

This semi-arbitrary restriction is fine because Intel's architecture allows KVM
to enumerate support for a single depth, but somewhere in the changelog and/or
code that actually needs to be state.  This blurb

  In the first generation of Arch LBR, max entry size is 32,
  host configures the max size and guest always honors the setting.

makes it sound like KVM is relying on the guest to do the right thing, and this
code looks like KVM is making up it's own behavior.

> +		if (data != pmu->kvm_arch_lbr_depth)
> +			return 1;
> +
> +		lbr_desc->records.nr = data;
> +		/*
> +		 * Writing depth MSR from guest could either setting the
> +		 * MSR or resetting the LBR records with the side-effect.
> +		 */
> +		if (kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))

Another check, really?  KVM shouldn't reach this point if KVM doesn't support
Arch LBRs.  And if that isn't guarantee (honestly forgot what this series actually
proposed at this point), then that's a bug, full stop.

> +			wrmsrl(MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH, lbr_desc->records.nr);

IIUC, this is subtly broken.  Piecing together all of the undocumented bits, my
understanding is that arch LBRs piggyback KVM's existing LBR support, i.e. use a
"virtual" perf event.  And like traditional LBR support, the host can steal control
of the LBRs in IRQ context by disabling the perf event via IPI.  And since writes
to MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH purge LBR records, this needs to be treated as if it were a
write to an LBR record, i.e. belongs in the IRQs disabled section of
intel_pmu_handle_lbr_msrs_access().

If for some magical reason it's safe to access arch LBR MSRs without disabling IRQs
and confirming perf event ownership, I want to see a very detailed changelog
explaining exactly how that magic works.

> +		return 0;
>  	default:
>  		if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0)) ||
>  		    (pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PMC0))) {
> @@ -506,6 +533,32 @@ static void setup_fixed_pmc_eventsel(struct kvm_pmu *pmu)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static bool cpuid_enable_lbr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> +	struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry;
> +	int depth_bit;
> +
> +	if (!kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
> +		return !static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
> +			cpuid_model_is_consistent(vcpu);
> +
> +	pmu->kvm_arch_lbr_depth = 0;
> +	if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	entry = kvm_find_cpuid_entry(vcpu, 0x1C);
> +	if (!entry)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	depth_bit = fls(cpuid_eax(0x1C) & 0xff);

This is unnecessarily fragile.  Get the LBR depth from perf, don't read CPUID and
assume perf will always configured the max depth.,

This enabling also belongs at the tail end of the series, i.e. KVM shouldn't let
userspace enable LBRs until all the support pieces are in place.

> +	if ((entry->eax & 0xff) != (1 << (depth_bit - 1)))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	pmu->kvm_arch_lbr_depth = depth_bit * 8;
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  static void intel_pmu_refresh(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> @@ -589,9 +642,7 @@ static void intel_pmu_refresh(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	bitmap_set(pmu->all_valid_pmc_idx,
>  		INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC, pmu->nr_arch_fixed_counters);
>  
> -	perf_capabilities = vcpu_get_perf_capabilities(vcpu);
> -	if (cpuid_model_is_consistent(vcpu) &&
> -	    (perf_capabilities & PMU_CAP_LBR_FMT))
> +	if (cpuid_enable_lbr(vcpu))
>  		x86_perf_get_lbr(&lbr_desc->records);
>  	else
>  		lbr_desc->records.nr = 0;
> @@ -599,6 +650,7 @@ static void intel_pmu_refresh(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	if (lbr_desc->records.nr)
>  		bitmap_set(pmu->all_valid_pmc_idx, INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR, 1);
>  
> +	perf_capabilities = vcpu_get_perf_capabilities(vcpu);
>  	if (perf_capabilities & PERF_CAP_PEBS_FORMAT) {
>  		if (perf_capabilities & PERF_CAP_PEBS_BASELINE) {
>  			pmu->pebs_enable_mask = counter_mask;
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-27 20:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-25  4:05 [PATCH v2 00/15] Introduce Architectural LBR for vPMU Yang Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 01/15] perf/x86/lbr: Simplify the exposure check for the LBR_INFO registers Yang Weijiang
2022-12-22 10:57   ` Like Xu
2022-12-22 13:29     ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-12-22 17:41     ` Sean Christopherson
2022-12-23  2:12       ` Like Xu
2022-12-27 11:58   ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Like Xu
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 02/15] KVM: x86: Report XSS as an MSR to be saved if there are supported features Yang Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 03/15] KVM: x86: Refresh CPUID on writes to MSR_IA32_XSS Yang Weijiang
2023-01-26 19:50   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30  6:33     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 04/15] KVM: PMU: disable LBR handling if architectural LBR is available Yang Weijiang
2023-01-27 20:10   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30  8:10     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 05/15] KVM: vmx/pmu: Emulate MSR_ARCH_LBR_DEPTH for guest Arch LBR Yang Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:00   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:30     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:15   ` Like Xu
2023-01-27 20:25   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2023-01-30 11:46     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 06/15] KVM: vmx/pmu: Emulate MSR_ARCH_LBR_CTL " Yang Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:09   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:27     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:19   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:16     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:24   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:08     ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-27 21:42   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 07/15] KVM: VMX: Support passthrough of architectural LBRs Yang Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 08/15] KVM: x86: Add Arch LBR MSRs to msrs_to_save_all list Yang Weijiang
2023-01-27 21:43   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 12:27     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 09/15] KVM: x86: Refine the matching and clearing logic for supported_xss Yang Weijiang
2023-01-27 21:46   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 12:37     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:05 ` [PATCH v2 10/15] KVM: x86/vmx: Check Arch LBR config when return perf capabilities Yang Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:06   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:28     ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:04   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-25  4:06 ` [PATCH v2 11/15] KVM: x86: Add XSAVE Support for Architectural LBR Yang Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:07   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 13:13     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:06 ` [PATCH v2 12/15] KVM: x86/vmx: Disable Arch LBREn bit in #DB and warm reset Yang Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:22   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:12     ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:09   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 13:09     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:06 ` [PATCH v2 13/15] KVM: x86/vmx: Save/Restore guest Arch LBR Ctrl msr at SMM entry/exit Yang Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:11   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 12:50     ` Yang, Weijiang
2022-11-25  4:06 ` [PATCH v2 14/15] KVM: x86: Add Arch LBR data MSR access interface Yang Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:13   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 12:46     ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-30 17:30       ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-31 13:14         ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-31 16:05           ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-25  4:06 ` [PATCH v2 15/15] KVM: x86/cpuid: Advertise Arch LBR feature in CPUID Yang Weijiang
2022-12-22 11:03   ` Like Xu
2022-12-25  4:31     ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:15   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-12  1:57 ` [PATCH v2 00/15] Introduce Architectural LBR for vPMU Yang, Weijiang
2023-01-27 22:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-30 13:38   ` Yang, Weijiang
2023-06-05  9:50   ` Like Xu

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=Y9QzLHNxS4K81SfU@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=like.xu.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=like.xu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=wei.w.wang@intel.com \
    --cc=weijiang.yang@intel.com \
    /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.