On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:56:02AM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:49:05PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 11/20/2018 02:15 PM, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > > Add support for the :G and :H attributes in perf by handling the
> > > exclude_host/exclude_guest event attributes.
> > >
> > > We notify KVM of counters that we wish to be enabled or disabled on
> > > guest entry/exit and thus defer from starting or stopping :G events
> > > as per the events exclude_host attribute.
> > >
> > > When using VHE, EL2 is unused by the guest - therefore we can filter
> > > out these events with the PMU as per the 'exclude_host' attribute.
> > >
> > > With both VHE and non-VHE we switch the counters between host/guest
> > > at EL2. With non-VHE when using 'exclude_host' we filter out EL2.
> > >
> > > These changes eliminate counters counting host events on the
> > > boundaries of guest entry/exit when using :G. However when using :H
> > > unless exclude_hv is set on non-VHE then there is a small blackout
> > > window at the guest entry/exit where host events are not captured.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 41
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>
> >
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > static inline int armv8pmu_disable_counter(int idx)
> > > @@ -664,11 +677,23 @@ static inline int armv8pmu_disable_counter(int idx)
> > > static inline void armv8pmu_disable_event_counter(struct perf_event
> > > *event)
> > > {
> > > struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> > > + struct perf_event_attr *attr = &event->attr;
> > > int idx = hwc->idx;
> > > + u32 counter_bits = BIT(ARMV8_IDX_TO_COUNTER(idx));
> > > if (armv8pmu_event_is_chained(event))
> > > - armv8pmu_disable_counter(idx - 1);
> > > - armv8pmu_disable_counter(idx);
> > > + counter_bits |= BIT(ARMV8_IDX_TO_COUNTER(idx - 1));
> > > +
> > > + if (attr->exclude_host)
> > > + kvm_set_clr_guest_pmu_events(counter_bits, 0);
> > > + if (attr->exclude_guest)
> > > + kvm_set_clr_host_pmu_events(counter_bits, 0);
> > > +
> > > + if (!attr->exclude_host) {
> > > + if (armv8pmu_event_is_chained(event))
> > > + armv8pmu_disable_counter(idx - 1);
> > > + armv8pmu_disable_counter(idx);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > static inline int armv8pmu_enable_intens(int idx)
> > > @@ -945,12 +970,12 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct
> > > hw_perf_event *event,
> > > * with other architectures (x86 and Power).
> > > */
> > > if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) {
> > > - if (!attr->exclude_kernel)
> > > + if (!attr->exclude_kernel && !attr->exclude_host)
> > > config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
> >
> > Shouldn't we handle "exclude_kernel" for a "Guest" event ?
> > i.e, what if we have exclude_kernel + exclude_host set ? Doesn't
> > the "exclude_kernel" apply to the event filtering after we enter
> > guest and thus, we need to set the EXCLUDE_EL1 ?
>
> Yes you're right. This is a problem not just for a VHE host's guest but
> for the host as well - for example perf -e instructions:h and
> -e instructions:G will currently give the same count.
>
> >
> > Also I am wondering what is the situation with Nested virtualisation
> > coming in. i.e, if the host hyp wanted to profile the guest hyp, should
> > we set EL2 events ? I understand this is something which should be
> > solved with the nested virt changes. But it would be good to see
> > if we could filter "exclude_host" and "exclude_guest" at the hypervisor
> > level (i.e, in software, without PMU filtering) to allow the normal
> > controls to make use of the hardware filtering ?
>
> It took me a while to think this through and I think you're right in
> that we can do more to future proof this for nested virt. In fact we
> don't depend on the hunks in this function (i.e. addition of extra
> '!attr->exclude_host' conditions) - we don't need them due to the
> enable/disable of counters at guest entry/exit.
>
> With the assumption of the hypervisor switch enabling/disabling
> host/guest counters I think we can now do the following:
>
> /*
> * If we're running in hyp mode, then we *are* the hypervisor.
> * Therefore we ignore exclude_hv in this configuration, since
> * there's no hypervisor to sample anyway. This is consistent
> * with other architectures (x86 and Power).
> */
> if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
> if (!attr->exclude_kernel)
> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
> else
> if (!attr->exclude_hv)
> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
>
> if (attr->exclude_kernel)
> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1;
>
> if (attr->exclude_user)
> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0;
>
> Also for nested virt we'd need to update
> kvm_pmu_set_counter_event_type to ensure exclude_kernel is set when
> the guest attempts to include EL2 to count a VHE guest kernel.
>
> Does this look right?
Actually I think this is more correct:
/*
* If we're running in hyp mode, then we *are* the hypervisor.
* Therefore we ignore exclude_hv in this configuration, since
* there's no hypervisor to sample anyway. This is consistent
* with other architectures (x86 and Power).
*
* To eliminate counting host events on the boundaries of
* guest entry/exit we ensure EL2 is not included in hyp mode
* with !exclude_host.
*/
if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
if (!attr->exclude_kernel && !attr->exclude_host)
config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
else
if (!attr->exclude_hv)
config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
/*
* Filter out !VHE kernels and guest kernels
*/
if (attr->exclude_kernel)
config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1;
if (attr->exclude_user)
config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0;
The reason for re-adding the !attr->exclude_host is to prevent
leakage of host events getting counted when using guest_only and thus
prevents information exposing to the guest. On VHE we flip the counters
from host to guest shortly before entering the guest - if we don't
exclude EL2 then we start counting host time between the counter flip
and actually entering the guest. As the guests will always be EL1/EL0
we really should exclude EL2. I don't think this breaks any nested
virt use case as EL2 is only ever emulated right?
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Murray
>
> >
> > > } else {
> > > if (attr->exclude_kernel)
> > > config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1;
> > > - if (!attr->exclude_hv)
> > > + if (!attr->exclude_hv && !attr->exclude_host)
> > > config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
> > > }
> >
> >
> > > if (attr->exclude_user)
> > > @@ -976,6 +1001,10 @@ static void armv8pmu_reset(void *info)
> > > armv8pmu_disable_intens(idx);
> > > }
> > > + /* Clear the counters we flip at guest entry/exit */
> > > + kvm_set_clr_host_pmu_events(U32_MAX, 0);
> > > + kvm_set_clr_guest_pmu_events(U32_MAX, 0);
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Initialize & Reset PMNC. Request overflow interrupt for
> > > * 64 bit cycle counter but cheat in armv8pmu_write_counter().
> > >
> >
> > Suzuki
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
