When a PT perf user is running in system-wide mode on the host,
the guest (w/ pt_mode=0) will warn about anonymous NMIs from
kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr():
[ 18.126444] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 10 on CPU 0.
[ 18.126447] Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
[ 18.126448] Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
In this case, these PMIs should be handled by the host PT handler().
When PT is used in guest-only mode, it's harmless to call host handler.
Fix: 8479e04e7d("KVM: x86: Inject PMI for KVM guest")
Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 +--
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 2521d03de5e0..2f09eb0853de 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -2853,8 +2853,7 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs, u64 status)
if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr))
perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();
- else
- intel_pt_interrupt();
+ intel_pt_interrupt();
}
/*
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 6529e2023147..6660f3948cea 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -8087,6 +8087,9 @@ static void kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr(void)
{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = __this_cpu_read(current_vcpu);
+ if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT))
+ return;
+
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMI, vcpu);
__set_bit(MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL_TRACE_TOPA_PMI_BIT,
(unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.pmu.global_status);
--
2.31.1
On Fri, May 14, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
> When a PT perf user is running in system-wide mode on the host,
> the guest (w/ pt_mode=0) will warn about anonymous NMIs from
> kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr():
>
> [ 18.126444] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 10 on CPU 0.
> [ 18.126447] Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
> [ 18.126448] Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
>
> In this case, these PMIs should be handled by the host PT handler().
> When PT is used in guest-only mode, it's harmless to call host handler.
>
> Fix: 8479e04e7d("KVM: x86: Inject PMI for KVM guest")
s/Fix/Fixes
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 +--
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 2521d03de5e0..2f09eb0853de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -2853,8 +2853,7 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs, u64 status)
> if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
> perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr))
> perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();
> - else
> - intel_pt_interrupt();
> + intel_pt_interrupt();
Would it make sense to instead do something like:
bool host_pmi = true;
...
if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr)
host_pmi = !perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();
if (likely(host_pmi))
intel_pt_interrupt();
> }
>
> /*
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 6529e2023147..6660f3948cea 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -8087,6 +8087,9 @@ static void kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr(void)
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = __this_cpu_read(current_vcpu);
>
> + if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT))
> + return;
> +
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMI, vcpu);
> __set_bit(MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL_TRACE_TOPA_PMI_BIT,
> (unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.pmu.global_status);
> --
> 2.31.1
>
On 27/5/2021 1:38 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
>> When a PT perf user is running in system-wide mode on the host,
>> the guest (w/ pt_mode=0) will warn about anonymous NMIs from
>> kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr():
>>
>> [ 18.126444] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 10 on CPU 0.
>> [ 18.126447] Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
>> [ 18.126448] Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
>>
>> In this case, these PMIs should be handled by the host PT handler().
>> When PT is used in guest-only mode, it's harmless to call host handler.
>>
>> Fix: 8479e04e7d("KVM: x86: Inject PMI for KVM guest")
>
> s/Fix/Fixes
>
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 +--
>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> index 2521d03de5e0..2f09eb0853de 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> @@ -2853,8 +2853,7 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs, u64 status)
>> if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
>> perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr))
>> perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();
>> - else
>> - intel_pt_interrupt();
>> + intel_pt_interrupt();
>
> Would it make sense to instead do something like:
>
> bool host_pmi = true;
>
> ...
>
> if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
> perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr)
> host_pmi = !perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();
struct perf_guest_info_callbacks {
...
void (*handle_intel_pt_intr)(void);
};
This fix is deferred until the following proposal is finalized.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YKImQ2%[email protected]/
>
> if (likely(host_pmi))
> intel_pt_interrupt();
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 6529e2023147..6660f3948cea 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -8087,6 +8087,9 @@ static void kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr(void)
>> {
>> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = __this_cpu_read(current_vcpu);
>>
>> + if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT))
>> + return;
>> +
>> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMI, vcpu);
>> __set_bit(MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL_TRACE_TOPA_PMI_BIT,
>> (unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.pmu.global_status);
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>