* [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR
@ 2020-06-03 20:33 Sean Christopherson
2020-06-04 1:37 ` Xu, Like
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2020-06-03 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini
Cc: Sean Christopherson, Vitaly Kuznetsov, Wanpeng Li, Jim Mattson,
Joerg Roedel, kvm, linux-kernel, Like Xu
Unconditionally return true when querying the validity of
MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES so as to defer the validity check to
intel_pmu_{get,set}_msr(), which can properly give the MSR a pass when
the access is initiated from host userspace. The MSR is emulated so
there is no underlying hardware dependency to worry about.
Fixes: 27461da31089a ("KVM: x86/pmu: Support full width counting")
Cc: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
---
KVM selftests are completely hosed for me, everything fails on KVM_GET_MSRS.
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
index d33d890b605f..bdcce65c7a1d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static bool intel_is_valid_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
ret = pmu->version > 1;
break;
case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
- ret = guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM);
+ ret = 1;
break;
default:
ret = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0) ||
--
2.26.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR
2020-06-03 20:33 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR Sean Christopherson
@ 2020-06-04 1:37 ` Xu, Like
2020-06-04 15:16 ` Sean Christopherson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Xu, Like @ 2020-06-04 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov, Wanpeng Li, Jim Mattson, Joerg Roedel, kvm,
linux-kernel, Like Xu
On 2020/6/4 4:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Unconditionally return true when querying the validity of
> MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES so as to defer the validity check to
> intel_pmu_{get,set}_msr(), which can properly give the MSR a pass when
> the access is initiated from host userspace.
Regardless of the MSR is emulated or not, is it a really good assumption that
the guest cpuids are not properly ready when we do initialization from host
userspace
?
> The MSR is emulated so
> there is no underlying hardware dependency to worry about.
>
> Fixes: 27461da31089a ("KVM: x86/pmu: Support full width counting")
> Cc: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> ---
>
> KVM selftests are completely hosed for me, everything fails on KVM_GET_MSRS.
At least I tried "make --silent -C tools/testing/selftests/kvm run_tests"
and how do I reproduce the "everything fails" for this issue ?
Thanks,
Like Xu
>
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> index d33d890b605f..bdcce65c7a1d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static bool intel_is_valid_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
> ret = pmu->version > 1;
> break;
> case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
> - ret = guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM);
> + ret = 1;
> break;
> default:
> ret = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0) ||
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR
2020-06-04 1:37 ` Xu, Like
@ 2020-06-04 15:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-06-04 16:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2020-06-04 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xu, Like
Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Vitaly Kuznetsov, Wanpeng Li, Jim Mattson,
Joerg Roedel, kvm, linux-kernel, Like Xu
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:37:59AM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2020/6/4 4:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >Unconditionally return true when querying the validity of
> >MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES so as to defer the validity check to
> >intel_pmu_{get,set}_msr(), which can properly give the MSR a pass when
> >the access is initiated from host userspace.
> Regardless of the MSR is emulated or not, is it a really good assumption that
> the guest cpuids are not properly ready when we do initialization from host
> userspace
> ?
I don't know if I would call it a "good assumption" so much as a "necessary
assumption". KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS are allowed, and must function correctly,
if they're called prior to KVM_SET_CPUID{2}.
> >The MSR is emulated so
> >there is no underlying hardware dependency to worry about.
> >
> >Fixes: 27461da31089a ("KVM: x86/pmu: Support full width counting")
> >Cc: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> >---
> >
> >KVM selftests are completely hosed for me, everything fails on KVM_GET_MSRS.
> At least I tried "make --silent -C tools/testing/selftests/kvm run_tests"
> and how do I reproduce the "everything fails" for this issue ?
Hmm, I did nothing more than run the tests on a HSW system.
> Thanks,
> Like Xu
> >
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> >index d33d890b605f..bdcce65c7a1d 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> >@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static bool intel_is_valid_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
> > ret = pmu->version > 1;
> > break;
> > case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
> >- ret = guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM);
> >+ ret = 1;
> > break;
> > default:
> > ret = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0) ||
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR
2020-06-04 15:16 ` Sean Christopherson
@ 2020-06-04 16:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-06-04 16:44 ` Jim Mattson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2020-06-04 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Christopherson, Xu, Like
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov, Wanpeng Li, Jim Mattson, Joerg Roedel, kvm,
linux-kernel, Like Xu
On 04/06/20 17:16, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:37:59AM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
>> On 2020/6/4 4:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> Unconditionally return true when querying the validity of
>>> MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES so as to defer the validity check to
>>> intel_pmu_{get,set}_msr(), which can properly give the MSR a pass when
>>> the access is initiated from host userspace.
>> Regardless of the MSR is emulated or not, is it a really good assumption that
>> the guest cpuids are not properly ready when we do initialization from host
>> userspace
>> ?
>
> I don't know if I would call it a "good assumption" so much as a "necessary
> assumption". KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS are allowed, and must function correctly,
> if they're called prior to KVM_SET_CPUID{2}.
Generally speaking this is not the case for the PMU; get_gp_pmc for
example depends on pmu->nr_arch_gp_counters which is initialized based
on CPUID leaf 0xA.
The assumption that this patch fixes is that you can blindly take the
output of KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST and pass it to KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS.
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR
2020-06-04 16:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
@ 2020-06-04 16:44 ` Jim Mattson
2020-06-04 16:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jim Mattson @ 2020-06-04 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini
Cc: Sean Christopherson, Xu, Like, Vitaly Kuznetsov, Wanpeng Li,
Joerg Roedel, kvm list, LKML, Like Xu
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:20 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/06/20 17:16, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:37:59AM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
> >> On 2020/6/4 4:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>> Unconditionally return true when querying the validity of
> >>> MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES so as to defer the validity check to
> >>> intel_pmu_{get,set}_msr(), which can properly give the MSR a pass when
> >>> the access is initiated from host userspace.
> >> Regardless of the MSR is emulated or not, is it a really good assumption that
> >> the guest cpuids are not properly ready when we do initialization from host
> >> userspace
> >> ?
> >
> > I don't know if I would call it a "good assumption" so much as a "necessary
> > assumption". KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS are allowed, and must function correctly,
> > if they're called prior to KVM_SET_CPUID{2}.
>
> Generally speaking this is not the case for the PMU; get_gp_pmc for
> example depends on pmu->nr_arch_gp_counters which is initialized based
> on CPUID leaf 0xA.
>
> The assumption that this patch fixes is that you can blindly take the
> output of KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST and pass it to KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS.
Is that an assumption or an invariant?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR
2020-06-04 16:44 ` Jim Mattson
@ 2020-06-04 16:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2020-06-04 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Mattson
Cc: Sean Christopherson, Xu, Like, Vitaly Kuznetsov, Wanpeng Li,
Joerg Roedel, kvm list, LKML, Like Xu
On 04/06/20 18:44, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> I don't know if I would call it a "good assumption" so much as a "necessary
>>> assumption". KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS are allowed, and must function correctly,
>>> if they're called prior to KVM_SET_CPUID{2}.
>> Generally speaking this is not the case for the PMU; get_gp_pmc for
>> example depends on pmu->nr_arch_gp_counters which is initialized based
>> on CPUID leaf 0xA.
>>
>> The assumption that this patch fixes is that you can blindly take the
>> output of KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST and pass it to KVM_{GET,SET}_MSRS.
>
> Is that an assumption or an invariant?
Both, I guess (a valid assumption for userspace, an invariant to be
respected for the kernel code).
The part where we don't fare to well, is that a bunch of MSRs that need
save/restore are _not_ included in KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST (and the PMU
is the biggest if not the only offender there).
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-06-04 16:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-06-03 20:33 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Always treat MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES as a valid PMU MSR Sean Christopherson
2020-06-04 1:37 ` Xu, Like
2020-06-04 15:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-06-04 16:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-06-04 16:44 ` Jim Mattson
2020-06-04 16:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).