2021-03-22 06:15:50

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 RESEND 0/5] x86: The perf/x86 changes to support guest Arch LBR

Hi Peter,

Please help review these minor perf/x86 changes in this patch set,
and we need some of them to support Guest Architectural LBR in KVM.

If you are interested in the KVM emulation, please check
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/[email protected]/

Please check more details in each commit and feel free to comment.

Like Xu (5):
perf/x86/intel: Fix the comment about guest LBR support on KVM
perf/x86/lbr: Simplify the exposure check for the LBR_INFO registers
perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region
perf/x86/lbr: Skip checking for the existence of LBR_TOS for Arch LBR
perf/x86: Move ARCH_LBR_CTL_MASK definition to include/asm/msr-index.h

arch/x86/events/core.c | 8 +++++---
arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 6 +++---
arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 8 +++++++-
arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h | 1 +
6 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

--
2.29.2


2021-03-22 06:15:51

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 RESEND 1/5] perf/x86/intel: Fix the comment about guest LBR support on KVM

Starting from v5.12, KVM reports guest LBR and extra_regs support
when the host has relevant support. Just delete this part of the
comment and fix a typo incidentally.

Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 37ce38403cb8..382dd3994463 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -5737,8 +5737,7 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)

/*
* Access LBR MSR may cause #GP under certain circumstances.
- * E.g. KVM doesn't support LBR MSR
- * Check all LBT MSR here.
+ * Check all LBR MSR here.
* Disable LBR access if any LBR MSRs can not be accessed.
*/
if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
--
2.29.2

2021-03-22 06:15:51

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 RESEND 2/5] perf/x86/lbr: Simplify the exposure check for the LBR_INFO registers

If the platform supports LBR_INFO register, the x86_pmu.lbr_info will
be assigned in intel_pmu_?_lbr_init_?() and it's safe to expose LBR_INFO
in the x86_perf_get_lbr() directly, instead of relying on lbr_format check.

Also Architectural LBR has IA32_LBR_x_INFO instead of LBR_FORMAT_INFO_x
to hold metadata for the operation, including mispredict, TSX, and
elapsed cycle time information.

Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
index 21890dacfcfe..355ea70f1879 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -1832,12 +1832,10 @@ void __init intel_pmu_arch_lbr_init(void)
*/
int x86_perf_get_lbr(struct x86_pmu_lbr *lbr)
{
- int lbr_fmt = x86_pmu.intel_cap.lbr_format;
-
lbr->nr = x86_pmu.lbr_nr;
lbr->from = x86_pmu.lbr_from;
lbr->to = x86_pmu.lbr_to;
- lbr->info = (lbr_fmt == LBR_FORMAT_INFO) ? x86_pmu.lbr_info : 0;
+ lbr->info = x86_pmu.lbr_info;

return 0;
}
--
2.29.2

2021-03-22 06:15:51

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region

If the kernel is compiled with the CONFIG_LOCKDEP option, the conditional
might_sleep_if() deep in kmem_cache_alloc() will generate the following
trace, and potentially cause a deadlock when another LBR event is added:

[ 243.115549] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at include/linux/sched/mm.h:196
[ 243.117576] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 839, name: perf
[ 243.119326] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
[ 243.120249] irq event stamp: 0
[ 243.120967] hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
[ 243.122415] hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<ffffffff810d9bf5>] copy_process+0xa45/0x1dc0
[ 243.124302] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff810d9bf5>] copy_process+0xa45/0x1dc0
[ 243.126255] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
[ 243.128119] CPU: 0 PID: 839 Comm: perf Not tainted 5.11.0-rc4-guest+ #8
[ 243.129654] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
[ 243.131520] Call Trace:
[ 243.132112] dump_stack+0x8d/0xb5
[ 243.132896] ___might_sleep.cold.106+0xb3/0xc3
[ 243.133984] slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.85+0x96/0xd0
[ 243.135208] ? intel_pmu_lbr_add+0x152/0x170
[ 243.136207] kmem_cache_alloc+0x36/0x250
[ 243.137126] intel_pmu_lbr_add+0x152/0x170
[ 243.138088] x86_pmu_add+0x83/0xd0
[ 243.138889] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
[ 243.139791] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
[ 243.140694] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
[ 243.141625] ? lock_acquired+0x1e3/0x360
[ 243.142544] ? lock_release+0x1bf/0x340
[ 243.143726] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0
[ 243.144823] ? lock_acquired+0x1e3/0x360
[ 243.145742] ? lock_release+0x1bf/0x340
[ 243.147107] ? __slab_free+0x49/0x540
[ 243.147966] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0
[ 243.148924] event_sched_in.isra.129+0xf8/0x2a0
[ 243.149989] merge_sched_in+0x261/0x3e0
[ 243.150889] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0
[ 243.151869] visit_groups_merge.constprop.135+0x130/0x4a0
[ 243.153122] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc/0xb0
[ 243.154023] ctx_sched_in+0x101/0x210
[ 243.154884] ctx_resched+0x6f/0xc0
[ 243.155686] perf_event_exec+0x21e/0x2e0
[ 243.156641] begin_new_exec+0x5e5/0xbd0
[ 243.157540] load_elf_binary+0x6af/0x1770
[ 243.158478] ? __kernel_read+0x19d/0x2b0
[ 243.159977] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
[ 243.160876] ? __kernel_read+0x19d/0x2b0
[ 243.161796] bprm_execve+0x3c8/0x840
[ 243.162638] do_execveat_common.isra.38+0x1a5/0x1c0
[ 243.163776] __x64_sys_execve+0x32/0x40
[ 243.164676] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
[ 243.165514] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 243.166746] RIP: 0033:0x7f6180a26feb
[ 243.167590] Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x7f6180a26fc1.
[ 243.169097] RSP: 002b:00007ffc6558ce18 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000003b
[ 243.170844] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffc65592d30 RCX: 00007f6180a26feb
[ 243.172514] RDX: 000055657f408dc0 RSI: 00007ffc65592410 RDI: 00007ffc65592d30
[ 243.174162] RBP: 00007ffc6558ce80 R08: 00007ffc6558cde0 R09: 0000000000000000
[ 243.176042] R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 00007ffc65592410
[ 243.177696] R13: 000055657f408dc0 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 00007ffc65592410

One of the solution is to use GFP_ATOMIC, but it will make the code less
reliable under memory pressue. Let's move the memory allocation out of
the sleeping region and put it into the x86_reserve_hardware().

The disadvantage of this fix is that the cpuc->lbr_xsave memory
will be allocated for each cpu like the legacy ds_buffer.

Fixes: c085fb8774 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support XSAVES for arch LBR read")
Suggested-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/events/core.c | 8 +++++---
arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 8 +++++++-
4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
index 18df17129695..a4ce669cc78d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ set_ext_hw_attr(struct hw_perf_event *hwc, struct perf_event *event)
return x86_pmu_extra_regs(val, event);
}

-int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
+int x86_reserve_hardware(struct perf_event *event)
{
int err = 0;

@@ -382,8 +382,10 @@ int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
if (atomic_read(&pmc_refcount) == 0) {
if (!reserve_pmc_hardware())
err = -EBUSY;
- else
+ else {
reserve_ds_buffers();
+ reserve_lbr_buffers(event);
+ }
}
if (!err)
atomic_inc(&pmc_refcount);
@@ -634,7 +636,7 @@ static int __x86_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
if (!x86_pmu_initialized())
return -ENODEV;

- err = x86_reserve_hardware();
+ err = x86_reserve_hardware(event);
if (err)
return err;

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c
index 731dd8d0dbb1..057bb2f761a9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c
@@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ static int bts_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
if (x86_add_exclusive(x86_lbr_exclusive_bts))
return -EBUSY;

- ret = x86_reserve_hardware();
+ ret = x86_reserve_hardware(event);
if (ret) {
x86_del_exclusive(x86_lbr_exclusive_bts);
return ret;
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
index 355ea70f1879..237876733e12 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -658,7 +658,6 @@ static inline bool branch_user_callstack(unsigned br_sel)

void intel_pmu_lbr_add(struct perf_event *event)
{
- struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = event->pmu->task_ctx_cache;
struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);

if (!x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
@@ -696,11 +695,6 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_add(struct perf_event *event)
perf_sched_cb_inc(event->ctx->pmu);
if (!cpuc->lbr_users++ && !event->total_time_running)
intel_pmu_lbr_reset();
-
- if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
- kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave &&
- (cpuc->lbr_users != cpuc->lbr_pebs_users))
- cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
}

void release_lbr_buffers(void)
@@ -721,6 +715,22 @@ void release_lbr_buffers(void)
}
}

+void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = x86_get_pmu()->task_ctx_cache;
+ struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
+ return;
+
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ cpuc = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events, cpu);
+ if (kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave && !event->attr.precise_ip)
+ cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+ }
+}
+
void intel_pmu_lbr_del(struct perf_event *event)
{
struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
index 53b2b5fc23bc..2fe77d3a98d6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
+++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
@@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what);

void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what);

-int x86_reserve_hardware(void);
+int x86_reserve_hardware(struct perf_event *event);

void x86_release_hardware(void);

@@ -1135,6 +1135,8 @@ void reserve_ds_buffers(void);

void release_lbr_buffers(void);

+void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event);
+
extern struct event_constraint bts_constraint;
extern struct event_constraint vlbr_constraint;

@@ -1282,6 +1284,10 @@ static inline void release_lbr_buffers(void)
{
}

+static inline void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+}
+
static inline int intel_pmu_init(void)
{
return 0;
--
2.29.2

2021-03-22 06:15:51

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 RESEND 4/5] perf/x86/lbr: Skip checking for the existence of LBR_TOS for Arch LBR

The Architecture LBR does not have MSR_LBR_TOS (0x000001c9). KVM will
generate #GP for this MSR access, thereby preventing the initialization
of the guest LBR.

Fixes: 47125db27e47 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support Architectural LBR")
Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 382dd3994463..7f6d748421f2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -5740,7 +5740,8 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
* Check all LBR MSR here.
* Disable LBR access if any LBR MSRs can not be accessed.
*/
- if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
+ if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
+ !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
for (i = 0; i < x86_pmu.lbr_nr; i++) {
if (!(check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_from + i, 0xffffUL) &&
--
2.29.2

2021-03-22 06:15:52

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 RESEND 5/5] perf/x86: Move ARCH_LBR_CTL_MASK definition to include/asm/msr-index.h

The ARCH_LBR_CTL_MASK will be reused for Arch LBR emulation in the KVM.

Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 2 --
arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
index 237876733e12..f60339ff0c13 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -168,8 +168,6 @@ enum {
ARCH_LBR_RETURN |\
ARCH_LBR_OTHER_BRANCH)

-#define ARCH_LBR_CTL_MASK 0x7f000e
-
static void intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc);

static __always_inline bool is_lbr_call_stack_bit_set(u64 config)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
index 546d6ecf0a35..8f3375961efc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
@@ -169,6 +169,7 @@
#define LBR_INFO_BR_TYPE (0xfull << LBR_INFO_BR_TYPE_OFFSET)

#define MSR_ARCH_LBR_CTL 0x000014ce
+#define ARCH_LBR_CTL_MASK 0x7f000e
#define ARCH_LBR_CTL_LBREN BIT(0)
#define ARCH_LBR_CTL_CPL_OFFSET 1
#define ARCH_LBR_CTL_CPL (0x3ull << ARCH_LBR_CTL_CPL_OFFSET)
--
2.29.2

2021-03-23 21:44:46

by Peter Zijlstra

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:33PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> index 18df17129695..a4ce669cc78d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ set_ext_hw_attr(struct hw_perf_event *hwc, struct perf_event *event)
> return x86_pmu_extra_regs(val, event);
> }
>
> -int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
> +int x86_reserve_hardware(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> int err = 0;
>
> @@ -382,8 +382,10 @@ int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
> if (atomic_read(&pmc_refcount) == 0) {
> if (!reserve_pmc_hardware())
> err = -EBUSY;
> - else
> + else {
> reserve_ds_buffers();
> + reserve_lbr_buffers(event);
> + }
> }
> if (!err)
> atomic_inc(&pmc_refcount);

This makes absolutely no sense what so ever. This is only executed for
the first event that gets here.

2021-03-23 21:53:40

by Peter Zijlstra

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 4/5] perf/x86/lbr: Skip checking for the existence of LBR_TOS for Arch LBR

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:34PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> The Architecture LBR does not have MSR_LBR_TOS (0x000001c9). KVM will
> generate #GP for this MSR access, thereby preventing the initialization
> of the guest LBR.
>
> Fixes: 47125db27e47 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support Architectural LBR")
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 382dd3994463..7f6d748421f2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -5740,7 +5740,8 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> * Check all LBR MSR here.
> * Disable LBR access if any LBR MSRs can not be accessed.
> */
> - if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
> + if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
> + !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
> x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;

But when ARCH_LBR we don't set lbr_tos, so we check MSR 0x000, not 0x1c9.

Do we want check_msr() to ignore msr==0 ?
Additionally, do we want a check for lbr_info ?

> for (i = 0; i < x86_pmu.lbr_nr; i++) {
> if (!(check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_from + i, 0xffffUL) &&
> --
> 2.29.2
>

2021-03-24 07:28:00

by Liang, Kan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region



On 3/22/2021 2:06 AM, Like Xu wrote:
> If the kernel is compiled with the CONFIG_LOCKDEP option, the conditional
> might_sleep_if() deep in kmem_cache_alloc() will generate the following
> trace, and potentially cause a deadlock when another LBR event is added:
>
> [ 243.115549] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at include/linux/sched/mm.h:196
> [ 243.117576] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 839, name: perf
> [ 243.119326] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
> [ 243.120249] irq event stamp: 0
> [ 243.120967] hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
> [ 243.122415] hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<ffffffff810d9bf5>] copy_process+0xa45/0x1dc0
> [ 243.124302] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff810d9bf5>] copy_process+0xa45/0x1dc0
> [ 243.126255] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
> [ 243.128119] CPU: 0 PID: 839 Comm: perf Not tainted 5.11.0-rc4-guest+ #8
> [ 243.129654] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
> [ 243.131520] Call Trace:
> [ 243.132112] dump_stack+0x8d/0xb5
> [ 243.132896] ___might_sleep.cold.106+0xb3/0xc3
> [ 243.133984] slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.85+0x96/0xd0
> [ 243.135208] ? intel_pmu_lbr_add+0x152/0x170
> [ 243.136207] kmem_cache_alloc+0x36/0x250
> [ 243.137126] intel_pmu_lbr_add+0x152/0x170
> [ 243.138088] x86_pmu_add+0x83/0xd0
> [ 243.138889] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
> [ 243.139791] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
> [ 243.140694] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
> [ 243.141625] ? lock_acquired+0x1e3/0x360
> [ 243.142544] ? lock_release+0x1bf/0x340
> [ 243.143726] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0
> [ 243.144823] ? lock_acquired+0x1e3/0x360
> [ 243.145742] ? lock_release+0x1bf/0x340
> [ 243.147107] ? __slab_free+0x49/0x540
> [ 243.147966] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0
> [ 243.148924] event_sched_in.isra.129+0xf8/0x2a0
> [ 243.149989] merge_sched_in+0x261/0x3e0
> [ 243.150889] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0
> [ 243.151869] visit_groups_merge.constprop.135+0x130/0x4a0
> [ 243.153122] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc/0xb0
> [ 243.154023] ctx_sched_in+0x101/0x210
> [ 243.154884] ctx_resched+0x6f/0xc0
> [ 243.155686] perf_event_exec+0x21e/0x2e0
> [ 243.156641] begin_new_exec+0x5e5/0xbd0
> [ 243.157540] load_elf_binary+0x6af/0x1770
> [ 243.158478] ? __kernel_read+0x19d/0x2b0
> [ 243.159977] ? lock_acquire+0x158/0x350
> [ 243.160876] ? __kernel_read+0x19d/0x2b0
> [ 243.161796] bprm_execve+0x3c8/0x840
> [ 243.162638] do_execveat_common.isra.38+0x1a5/0x1c0
> [ 243.163776] __x64_sys_execve+0x32/0x40
> [ 243.164676] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
> [ 243.165514] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [ 243.166746] RIP: 0033:0x7f6180a26feb
> [ 243.167590] Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x7f6180a26fc1.
> [ 243.169097] RSP: 002b:00007ffc6558ce18 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000003b
> [ 243.170844] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffc65592d30 RCX: 00007f6180a26feb
> [ 243.172514] RDX: 000055657f408dc0 RSI: 00007ffc65592410 RDI: 00007ffc65592d30
> [ 243.174162] RBP: 00007ffc6558ce80 R08: 00007ffc6558cde0 R09: 0000000000000000
> [ 243.176042] R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 00007ffc65592410
> [ 243.177696] R13: 000055657f408dc0 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 00007ffc65592410
>
> One of the solution is to use GFP_ATOMIC, but it will make the code less
> reliable under memory pressue. Let's move the memory allocation out of
> the sleeping region and put it into the x86_reserve_hardware().
>
> The disadvantage of this fix is that the cpuc->lbr_xsave memory
> will be allocated for each cpu like the legacy ds_buffer.
>
> Fixes: c085fb8774 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support XSAVES for arch LBR read")
> Suggested-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>

I observed the same issue when I did LBR test on an ADL machine. This
patch fixes the issue.

Tested-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>

Thanks,
Kan
> ---
> arch/x86/events/core.c | 8 +++++---
> arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 8 +++++++-
> 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> index 18df17129695..a4ce669cc78d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ set_ext_hw_attr(struct hw_perf_event *hwc, struct perf_event *event)
> return x86_pmu_extra_regs(val, event);
> }
>
> -int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
> +int x86_reserve_hardware(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> int err = 0;
>
> @@ -382,8 +382,10 @@ int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
> if (atomic_read(&pmc_refcount) == 0) {
> if (!reserve_pmc_hardware())
> err = -EBUSY;
> - else
> + else {
> reserve_ds_buffers();
> + reserve_lbr_buffers(event);
> + }
> }
> if (!err)
> atomic_inc(&pmc_refcount);
> @@ -634,7 +636,7 @@ static int __x86_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> if (!x86_pmu_initialized())
> return -ENODEV;
>
> - err = x86_reserve_hardware();
> + err = x86_reserve_hardware(event);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c
> index 731dd8d0dbb1..057bb2f761a9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/bts.c
> @@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ static int bts_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> if (x86_add_exclusive(x86_lbr_exclusive_bts))
> return -EBUSY;
>
> - ret = x86_reserve_hardware();
> + ret = x86_reserve_hardware(event);
> if (ret) {
> x86_del_exclusive(x86_lbr_exclusive_bts);
> return ret;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> index 355ea70f1879..237876733e12 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> @@ -658,7 +658,6 @@ static inline bool branch_user_callstack(unsigned br_sel)
>
> void intel_pmu_lbr_add(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> - struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = event->pmu->task_ctx_cache;
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
>
> if (!x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
> @@ -696,11 +695,6 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_add(struct perf_event *event)
> perf_sched_cb_inc(event->ctx->pmu);
> if (!cpuc->lbr_users++ && !event->total_time_running)
> intel_pmu_lbr_reset();
> -
> - if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
> - kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave &&
> - (cpuc->lbr_users != cpuc->lbr_pebs_users))
> - cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> }
>
> void release_lbr_buffers(void)
> @@ -721,6 +715,22 @@ void release_lbr_buffers(void)
> }
> }
>
> +void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = x86_get_pmu()->task_ctx_cache;
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
> + return;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + cpuc = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events, cpu);
> + if (kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave && !event->attr.precise_ip)
> + cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> + }
> +}
> +
> void intel_pmu_lbr_del(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> index 53b2b5fc23bc..2fe77d3a98d6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> @@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what);
>
> void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what);
>
> -int x86_reserve_hardware(void);
> +int x86_reserve_hardware(struct perf_event *event);
>
> void x86_release_hardware(void);
>
> @@ -1135,6 +1135,8 @@ void reserve_ds_buffers(void);
>
> void release_lbr_buffers(void);
>
> +void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event);
> +
> extern struct event_constraint bts_constraint;
> extern struct event_constraint vlbr_constraint;
>
> @@ -1282,6 +1284,10 @@ static inline void release_lbr_buffers(void)
> {
> }
>
> +static inline void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> +}
> +
> static inline int intel_pmu_init(void)
> {
> return 0;
>

2021-03-24 07:36:07

by Peter Zijlstra

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 2/5] perf/x86/lbr: Simplify the exposure check for the LBR_INFO registers

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:32PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> If the platform supports LBR_INFO register, the x86_pmu.lbr_info will
> be assigned in intel_pmu_?_lbr_init_?() and it's safe to expose LBR_INFO

You mean: intel_pmu_lbr_*init*(). '?' is a single character glob and
you've got too many '_'s.

> in the x86_perf_get_lbr() directly, instead of relying on lbr_format check.

But, afaict, not every model calls one of those. CORE_YONAH for example
doesn't.

> Also Architectural LBR has IA32_LBR_x_INFO instead of LBR_FORMAT_INFO_x
> to hold metadata for the operation, including mispredict, TSX, and
> elapsed cycle time information.

Relevance?

Wouldn't it be much simpler to simple say something like:

"x86_pmu.lbr_info is 0 unless explicitly initialized, so there's no
point checking lbr_fmt"

> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> index 21890dacfcfe..355ea70f1879 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> @@ -1832,12 +1832,10 @@ void __init intel_pmu_arch_lbr_init(void)
> */
> int x86_perf_get_lbr(struct x86_pmu_lbr *lbr)
> {
> - int lbr_fmt = x86_pmu.intel_cap.lbr_format;
> -
> lbr->nr = x86_pmu.lbr_nr;
> lbr->from = x86_pmu.lbr_from;
> lbr->to = x86_pmu.lbr_to;
> - lbr->info = (lbr_fmt == LBR_FORMAT_INFO) ? x86_pmu.lbr_info : 0;
> + lbr->info = x86_pmu.lbr_info;
>
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.29.2
>

2021-03-24 09:11:58

by Namhyung Kim

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region

Hello,

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:14 PM Like Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = x86_get_pmu()->task_ctx_cache;
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
> + return;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + cpuc = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events, cpu);
> + if (kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave && !event->attr.precise_ip)
> + cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> + }
> +}

I think we should use kmem_cache_alloc_node().

Thanks,
Namhyung

2021-03-24 09:13:59

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 2/5] perf/x86/lbr: Simplify the exposure check for the LBR_INFO registers

On 2021/3/24 5:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:32PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> If the platform supports LBR_INFO register, the x86_pmu.lbr_info will
>> be assigned in intel_pmu_?_lbr_init_?() and it's safe to expose LBR_INFO
>
> You mean: intel_pmu_lbr_*init*(). '?' is a single character glob and
> you've got too many '_'s.
>
>> in the x86_perf_get_lbr() directly, instead of relying on lbr_format check.
>
> But, afaict, not every model calls one of those. CORE_YONAH for example
> doesn't.
>
>> Also Architectural LBR has IA32_LBR_x_INFO instead of LBR_FORMAT_INFO_x
>> to hold metadata for the operation, including mispredict, TSX, and
>> elapsed cycle time information.
>
> Relevance?
>
> Wouldn't it be much simpler to simple say something like:
>
> "x86_pmu.lbr_info is 0 unless explicitly initialized, so there's no
> point checking lbr_fmt"

Yes, it is simpler and I will apply it in the next version.

>
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
>> index 21890dacfcfe..355ea70f1879 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
>> @@ -1832,12 +1832,10 @@ void __init intel_pmu_arch_lbr_init(void)
>> */
>> int x86_perf_get_lbr(struct x86_pmu_lbr *lbr)
>> {
>> - int lbr_fmt = x86_pmu.intel_cap.lbr_format;
>> -
>> lbr->nr = x86_pmu.lbr_nr;
>> lbr->from = x86_pmu.lbr_from;
>> lbr->to = x86_pmu.lbr_to;
>> - lbr->info = (lbr_fmt == LBR_FORMAT_INFO) ? x86_pmu.lbr_info : 0;
>> + lbr->info = x86_pmu.lbr_info;
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.29.2
>>

2021-03-24 09:41:23

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 4/5] perf/x86/lbr: Skip checking for the existence of LBR_TOS for Arch LBR

On 2021/3/24 5:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:34PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> The Architecture LBR does not have MSR_LBR_TOS (0x000001c9). KVM will
>> generate #GP for this MSR access, thereby preventing the initialization
>> of the guest LBR.
>>
>> Fixes: 47125db27e47 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support Architectural LBR")
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> index 382dd3994463..7f6d748421f2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> @@ -5740,7 +5740,8 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>> * Check all LBR MSR here.
>> * Disable LBR access if any LBR MSRs can not be accessed.
>> */
>> - if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
>> + if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
>> + !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
>> x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
>
> But when ARCH_LBR we don't set lbr_tos, so we check MSR 0x000, not 0x1c9.

It's true.

>
> Do we want check_msr() to ignore msr==0 ?

Considering another target of check_msr() is for uncore msrs,
how about this change:

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 759226919a36..06fa31a01a5b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -4704,10 +4704,10 @@ static bool check_msr(unsigned long msr, u64 mask)
u64 val_old, val_new, val_tmp;

/*
- * Disable the check for real HW, so we don't
+ * Disable the check for real HW or non-sense msr, so we don't
* mess with potentionaly enabled registers:
*/
- if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
+ if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) || !msr)
return true;

/*


> Additionally, do we want a check for lbr_info ?

I am not inclined to do this because we may have
virtualized model-specific guest LBR support
which may break the cpu_model assumption.

>
>> for (i = 0; i < x86_pmu.lbr_nr; i++) {
>> if (!(check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_from + i, 0xffffUL) &&
>> --
>> 2.29.2
>>

2021-03-24 21:33:51

by Liang, Kan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region



On 3/23/2021 5:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:33PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
>> index 18df17129695..a4ce669cc78d 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
>> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ set_ext_hw_attr(struct hw_perf_event *hwc, struct perf_event *event)
>> return x86_pmu_extra_regs(val, event);
>> }
>>
>> -int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
>> +int x86_reserve_hardware(struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> @@ -382,8 +382,10 @@ int x86_reserve_hardware(void)
>> if (atomic_read(&pmc_refcount) == 0) {
>> if (!reserve_pmc_hardware())
>> err = -EBUSY;
>> - else
>> + else {
>> reserve_ds_buffers();
>> + reserve_lbr_buffers(event);
>> + }
>> }
>> if (!err)
>> atomic_inc(&pmc_refcount);
>
> This makes absolutely no sense what so ever. This is only executed for
> the first event that gets here.
>

The LBR xsave buffer is a per-CPU buffer, not a per-event buffer. I
think we only need to allocate the buffer once when initializing the
first event.

Thanks,
Kan

2021-03-24 22:21:32

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region

Hi Namhyung,

On 2021/3/24 9:32, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:14 PM Like Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> +void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
>> +{
>> + struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = x86_get_pmu()->task_ctx_cache;
>> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + cpuc = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events, cpu);
>> + if (kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave && !event->attr.precise_ip)
>> + cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + }
>> +}
>
> I think we should use kmem_cache_alloc_node().

"kmem_cache_alloc_node - Allocate an object on the specified node"

The reserve_lbr_buffers() is called in __x86_pmu_event_init().
When the LBR perf_event is scheduled to another node, it seems
that we will not call init() and allocate again.

Do you mean use kmem_cache_alloc_node() for each numa_nodes_parsed ?

>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>

2021-03-24 22:22:08

by Namhyung Kim

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:47 PM Like Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Namhyung,
>
> On 2021/3/24 9:32, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:14 PM Like Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> +void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
> >> +{
> >> + struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = x86_get_pmu()->task_ctx_cache;
> >> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
> >> + int cpu;
> >> +
> >> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> >> + cpuc = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events, cpu);
> >> + if (kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave && !event->attr.precise_ip)
> >> + cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >
> > I think we should use kmem_cache_alloc_node().
>
> "kmem_cache_alloc_node - Allocate an object on the specified node"
>
> The reserve_lbr_buffers() is called in __x86_pmu_event_init().
> When the LBR perf_event is scheduled to another node, it seems
> that we will not call init() and allocate again.
>
> Do you mean use kmem_cache_alloc_node() for each numa_nodes_parsed ?

I assume cpuc->lbr_xsave will be accessed for that cpu only.
Then it needs to allocate it in the node that cpu belongs to.
Something like below..

cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc_node(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL,
cpu_to_node(cpu));

Thanks,
Namhyung

2021-03-24 22:35:40

by Like Xu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] perf/x86/lbr: Move cpuc->lbr_xsave allocation out of sleeping region

On 2021/3/24 12:04, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:47 PM Like Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Namhyung,
>>
>> On 2021/3/24 9:32, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:14 PM Like Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> +void reserve_lbr_buffers(struct perf_event *event)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache = x86_get_pmu()->task_ctx_cache;
>>>> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
>>>> + int cpu;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>>> + cpuc = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events, cpu);
>>>> + if (kmem_cache && !cpuc->lbr_xsave && !event->attr.precise_ip)
>>>> + cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> I think we should use kmem_cache_alloc_node().
>>
>> "kmem_cache_alloc_node - Allocate an object on the specified node"
>>
>> The reserve_lbr_buffers() is called in __x86_pmu_event_init().
>> When the LBR perf_event is scheduled to another node, it seems
>> that we will not call init() and allocate again.
>>
>> Do you mean use kmem_cache_alloc_node() for each numa_nodes_parsed ?
>
> I assume cpuc->lbr_xsave will be accessed for that cpu only.
> Then it needs to allocate it in the node that cpu belongs to.
> Something like below..
>
> cpuc->lbr_xsave = kmem_cache_alloc_node(kmem_cache, GFP_KERNEL,
> cpu_to_node(cpu));

Thanks, it helps and I will apply it in the next version.

>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>