From: "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Liang Kan <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] perf/x86: Add constraint to create guest LBR event without hw counter
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:40:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afa1528f-9aa5-2300-3c84-dc20bf17a8cc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0b89963d-33d8-3b0f-fc56-eff3ccce648d@intel.com>
Hi Peter,
On 2020/4/10 11:03, Xu, Like wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> First of all, thanks for your comments!
>
> On 2020/4/10 0:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
>>> index 3bb738f5a472..e919187a0751 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
>>> @@ -74,7 +74,8 @@ u64 x86_perf_event_update(struct perf_event *event)
>>> int idx = hwc->idx;
>>> u64 delta;
>>> - if (idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS)
>>> + if ((idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS) ||
>>> + (idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR))
>>> return 0;
>>> /*
>>> @@ -1102,7 +1103,8 @@ static inline void x86_assign_hw_event(struct
>>> perf_event *event,
>>> hwc->last_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>> hwc->last_tag = ++cpuc->tags[i];
>>> - if (hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS) {
>>> + if ((hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS) ||
>>> + (hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR)) {
>>> hwc->config_base = 0;
>>> hwc->event_base = 0;
>>> } else if (hwc->idx >= INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) {
>>> @@ -1233,7 +1235,8 @@ int x86_perf_event_set_period(struct perf_event
>>> *event)
>>> s64 period = hwc->sample_period;
>>> int ret = 0, idx = hwc->idx;
>>> - if (idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS)
>>> + if ((idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS) ||
>>> + (idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR))
>>> return 0;
>>> /*
>> That seems unfortunate; can that be >= INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS ? If so,
>> that probably wants a comment with the definitions.
>>
>> Or otherwise check for !hwc->event_base. That should be 0 for both these
>> things.
> Yes, the !hwc->event_base looks good to me.
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>> index 3be51aa06e67..901c82032f4a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>> @@ -2157,6 +2157,9 @@ static void intel_pmu_disable_event(struct
>>> perf_event *event)
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> + if (unlikely(hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR))
>>> + return;
>>> +
>> Please check code-gen to see if you can cut down on brancher here;
>> there's 4 cases:
>>
>> - vlbr
>> - bts
>> - fixed
>> - gp
>>
>> perhaps you can write it like so:
>>
>> (also see
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190828090217.GN2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>> )
>>
>> static void intel_pmu_enable_event(struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> ...
>> int idx = hwx->idx;
>>
>> if (idx < INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) {
>> intel_set_masks(event, idx);
>> __x86_pmu_enable_event(hwc, ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE);
>> } else if (idx < INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS) {
>> intel_set_masks(event, idx);
>> intel_pmu_enable_fixed(event);
>> } else if (idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS) {
>> intel_pmu_enable_bts(hwc->config);
>> }
>>
>> /* nothing for INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR */
>> }
>>
>> That should sort the branches in order of: gp,fixed,bts,vlbr
>
> Note the current order is: bts, pebs, fixed, gp.
>
> Sure, let me try to refactor it in this way.
>>
>>> cpuc->intel_ctrl_guest_mask &= ~(1ull << hwc->idx);
>>> cpuc->intel_ctrl_host_mask &= ~(1ull << hwc->idx);
>>> cpuc->intel_cp_status &= ~(1ull << hwc->idx);
>>> @@ -2241,6 +2244,9 @@ static void intel_pmu_enable_event(struct
>>> perf_event *event)
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> + if (unlikely(hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR))
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> if (event->attr.exclude_host)
>>> cpuc->intel_ctrl_guest_mask |= (1ull << hwc->idx);
>>> if (event->attr.exclude_guest)
>> idem.
> idem.
>>
>>> @@ -2595,6 +2601,15 @@ intel_bts_constraints(struct perf_event *event)
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>> +static struct event_constraint *
>>> +intel_guest_event_constraints(struct perf_event *event)
>>> +{
>>> + if (unlikely(is_guest_lbr_event(event)))
>>> + return &guest_lbr_constraint;
>>> +
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +}
>> This is a mis-nomer, it isn't just any guest_event
>
> Sure, I'll rename it to intel_guest_lbr_event_constraints()
> instead of using it as a unified interface to get all of guest event
> constraints.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> static int intel_alt_er(int idx, u64 config)
>>> {
>>> int alt_idx = idx;
>>> @@ -2785,6 +2800,10 @@ __intel_get_event_constraints(struct
>>> cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx,
>>> {
>>> struct event_constraint *c;
>>> + c = intel_guest_event_constraints(event);
>>> + if (c)
>>> + return c;
>>> +
>>> c = intel_bts_constraints(event);
>>> if (c)
>>> return c;
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
>>> index 1025bc6eb04f..9a62264a3068 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
>>> @@ -969,6 +969,20 @@ static inline bool intel_pmu_has_bts(struct
>>> perf_event *event)
>>> return intel_pmu_has_bts_period(event, hwc->sample_period);
>>> }
>>> +static inline bool is_guest_event(struct perf_event *event)
>>> +{
>>> + if (event->attr.exclude_host && is_kernel_event(event))
>>> + return true;
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>> I don't like this one, what if another in-kernel users generates an
>> event with exclude_host set ?
> Thanks for the clear attitude.
>
> How about:
> - remove the is_guest_event() to avoid potential misuse;
> - move all checks into is_guest_lbr_event() and make it dedicated:
>
> static inline bool is_guest_lbr_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> if (is_kernel_event(event) &&
> event->attr.exclude_host && needs_branch_stack(event))
> return true;
> return false;
> }
>
> In this case, it's safe to generate an event with exclude_host set
> and also use LBR to count guest or nothing for other in-kernel users
> because the intel_guest_lbr_event_constraints() makes LBR exclusive.
>
> For this generic usage, I may rename:
> - is_guest_lbr_event() to is_lbr_no_counter_event();
> - intel_guest_lbr_event_constraints() to
> intel_lbr_no_counter_event_constraints();
>
> Is this acceptable to you?
> If there is anything needs to be improved, please let me know.
Do you have any preference for this ?
If you have more comments for the general idea or code details, please let
me know.
For example, you may take a look at the interface named
intel_pmu_create_lbr_event()
in the "[PATCH v9 07/10] KVM: x86/pmu: Add LBR feature emulation via guest
LBR event".
If not, I'll spin the next version based on your current feedback.
Thanks,
Like Xu
>
>>> @@ -989,6 +1003,7 @@ void release_ds_buffers(void);
>>> void reserve_ds_buffers(void);
>>> extern struct event_constraint bts_constraint;
>>> +extern struct event_constraint guest_lbr_constraint;
>>> void intel_pmu_enable_bts(u64 config);
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>>> index e018a1cf604c..674130aca75a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>>> @@ -181,9 +181,19 @@ struct x86_pmu_capability {
>>> #define GLOBAL_STATUS_UNC_OVF BIT_ULL(61)
>>> #define GLOBAL_STATUS_ASIF BIT_ULL(60)
>>> #define GLOBAL_STATUS_COUNTERS_FROZEN BIT_ULL(59)
>>> -#define GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN BIT_ULL(58)
>>> +#define GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN_BIT 58
>>> +#define GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN BIT_ULL(GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN_BIT)
>>> #define GLOBAL_STATUS_TRACE_TOPAPMI BIT_ULL(55)
>>> +/*
>>> + * We model guest LBR event tracing as another fixed-mode PMC like BTS.
>>> + *
>>> + * We choose bit 58 (LBRS_FROZEN_BIT) which is used to indicate that
>>> the LBR
>>> + * stack is frozen on a hardware PMI request in the PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS
>>> msr,
>>> + * and the 59th PMC counter (if any) is not supposed to use it as well.
>> Is this saying that STATUS.58 should never be set? I don't really
>> understand the language.
> My fault, and let me make it more clearly:
>
> We choose bit 58 because it's used to indicate LBR stack frozen state
> not like other overflow conditions in the PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS msr,
> and it will not be used for any actual fixed events.
>
>>
>>> + */
>>> +#define INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN_BIT
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Adaptive PEBS v4
>>> */
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-17 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-13 2:16 [PATCH v9 00/10] Guest Last Branch Recording Enabling Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 01/10] perf/x86: Fix msr variable type for the LBR msrs Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 02/10] perf/x86/lbr: Add interface to get basic information about LBR stack Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 03/10] perf/x86: Add constraint to create guest LBR event without hw counter Like Xu
2020-04-09 16:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-10 3:03 ` Xu, Like
2020-04-17 8:40 ` Xu, Like [this message]
2020-04-17 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 04/10] perf/x86: Keep LBR stack unchanged on the host for guest LBR event Like Xu
2020-04-09 16:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-10 3:10 ` Xu, Like
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 05/10] KVM: x86: Add KVM_CAP_X86_GUEST_LBR interface to dis/enable LBR feature Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 06/10] KVM: x86/pmu: Tweak kvm_pmu_get_msr to pass 'struct msr_data' in Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 07/10] KVM: x86/pmu: Add LBR feature emulation via guest LBR event Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 08/10] KVM: x86/pmu: Release guest LBR event via vPMU lazy release mechanism Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 09/10] KVM: x86: Expose MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES to guest for LBR record format Like Xu
2020-03-13 2:16 ` [PATCH v9 10/10] KVM: x86: Remove the common trap handler of the MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR Like Xu
2020-03-20 8:45 ` [PATCH v9 00/10] Guest Last Branch Recording Enabling Xu, Like
2020-04-02 12:59 ` Xu, Like
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=afa1528f-9aa5-2300-3c84-dc20bf17a8cc@intel.com \
--to=like.xu@intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.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=liran.alon@oracle.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=wei.w.wang@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 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).