Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86/svm/pmu: Add AMD PerfMonV2 support

[Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 8:50 PM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/9/2022 4:19 am, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 5:45 AM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/9/2022 2:00 am, Jim Mattson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 5:44 AM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> If AMD Performance Monitoring Version 2 (PerfMonV2) is detected
> >>>> by the guest, it can use a new scheme to manage the Core PMCs using
> >>>> the new global control and status registers.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition to benefiting from the PerfMonV2 functionality in the same
> >>>> way as the host (higher precision), the guest also can reduce the number
> >>>> of vm-exits by lowering the total number of MSRs accesses.
> >>>>
> >>>> In terms of implementation details, amd_is_valid_msr() is resurrected
> >>>> since three newly added MSRs could not be mapped to one vPMC.
> >>>> The possibility of emulating PerfMonV2 on the mainframe has also
> >>>> been eliminated for reasons of precision.
> >>>>
> >>>> Co-developed-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c     |  6 +++++
> >>>>    arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>>>    arch/x86/kvm/x86.c     | 11 ++++++++++
> >>>>    3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> >>>> index 7002e1b74108..56b4f898a246 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> >>>> @@ -455,12 +455,15 @@ int kvm_pmu_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>>>
> >>>>           switch (msr) {
> >>>>           case MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_STATUS:
> >>>>                   msr_info->data = pmu->global_status;
> >>>>                   return 0;
> >>>>           case MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_CTL:
> >>>>                   msr_info->data = pmu->global_ctrl;
> >>>>                   return 0;
> >>>>           case MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_STATUS_CLR:
> >>>>                   msr_info->data = 0;
> >>>>                   return 0;
> >>>>           default:
> >>>> @@ -479,12 +482,14 @@ int kvm_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>>>
> >>>>           switch (msr) {
> >>>>           case MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_STATUS:
> >>>>                   if (msr_info->host_initiated) {
> >>>>                           pmu->global_status = data;
> >>>>                           return 0;
> >>>>                   }
> >>>>                   break; /* RO MSR */
> >>>>           case MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_CTL:
> >>>>                   if (pmu->global_ctrl == data)
> >>>>                           return 0;
> >>>>                   if (kvm_valid_perf_global_ctrl(pmu, data)) {
> >>>> @@ -495,6 +500,7 @@ int kvm_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>>>                   }
> >>>>                   break;
> >>>>           case MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_STATUS_CLR:
> >>>>                   if (!(data & pmu->global_ovf_ctrl_mask)) {
> >>>>                           if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
> >>>>                                   pmu->global_status &= ~data;
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c
> >>>> index 3a20972e9f1a..4c7d408e3caa 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c
> >>>> @@ -92,12 +92,6 @@ static struct kvm_pmc *amd_rdpmc_ecx_to_pmc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >>>>           return amd_pmc_idx_to_pmc(vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu), idx & ~(3u << 30));
> >>>>    }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static bool amd_is_valid_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
> >>>> -{
> >>>> -       /* All MSRs refer to exactly one PMC, so msr_idx_to_pmc is enough.  */
> >>>> -       return false;
> >>>> -}
> >>>> -
> >>>>    static struct kvm_pmc *amd_msr_idx_to_pmc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>           struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> >>>> @@ -109,6 +103,29 @@ static struct kvm_pmc *amd_msr_idx_to_pmc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
> >>>>           return pmc;
> >>>>    }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static bool amd_is_valid_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +       struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       switch (msr) {
> >>>> +       case MSR_K7_EVNTSEL0 ... MSR_K7_PERFCTR3:
> >>>> +               return pmu->version > 0;
> >>>> +       case MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL0 ... MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR5:
> >>>> +               return guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE);
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_STATUS:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_CTL:
> >>>> +       case MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_STATUS_CLR:
> >>>> +               return pmu->version > 1;
> >>>> +       default:
> >>>> +               if (msr > MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR5 &&
> >>>> +                   msr < MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL0 + 2 * KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC)
> >>>> +                       return pmu->version > 1;
> >>>
> >>> Should this be bounded by guest CPUID.80000022H:EBX[NumCorePmc]
> >>> (unless host-initiated)?
> >>
> >> Indeed, how about:
> >>
> >>          default:
> >>                  if (msr > MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR5 &&
> >>                      msr < MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL0 + 2 * pmu->nr_arch_gp_counters)
> >>                          return pmu->version > 1;
> >>
> >> and for host-initiated:
> >>
> >> #define MSR_F15H_PERF_MSR_MAX  \
> >>          (MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR0 + 2 * (KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC - 1))
> >
> > I think there may be an off-by-one error here.
>
> If KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC is 6:
>
> #define MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL               0xc0010200
> #define MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL5              (MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL + 10)
>
> #define MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR               0xc0010201
> #define MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR0              MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR
> #define MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR5              (MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR + 10)
>
> >
> >>
> >> kvm_{set|get}_msr_common()
> >>          case MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL0 ... MSR_F15H_PERF_MSR_MAX:
>
> the original code is "case MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL0 ... MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR5:",
>
> in that case, MSR_F15H_PERF_MSR_MAX make sense, right ?

Right. I was misreading the definition.