Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 16:05:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@redhat.com,
        namhyung@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de,
        hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        like.xu@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a
 dedicated counter for guest PEBS
Message-ID: <20200309150526.GI12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1583431025-19802-1-git-send-email-luwei.kang@intel.com>
 <1583431025-19802-2-git-send-email-luwei.kang@intel.com>
 <20200306135317.GD12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b72cb68e-1a0a-eeff-21b4-ce412e939cfd@linux.intel.com>
 <20200309100443.GG12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <97ce1ba4-d75a-8db2-ea2f-7d334942b4e6@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <97ce1ba4-d75a-8db2-ea2f-7d334942b4e6@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:12:42AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:

> > Suppose your KVM thing claims counter 0/2 (ICL/SKL) for some random PEBS
> > event, and then the host wants to use PREC_DIST.. Then one of them will
> > be screwed for no reason what so ever.
> > 
> 
> The multiplexing should be triggered.
> 
> For host, if both user A and user B requires PREC_DIST, the multiplexing
> should be triggered for them.
> Now, the user B is KVM. I don't think there is difference. The multiplexing
> should still be triggered. Why it is screwed?

Becuase if KVM isn't PREC_DIST we should be able to reschedule it to a
different counter.

> > How is that not destroying scheduling freedom? Any other situation we'd
> > have moved the !PREC_DIST PEBS event to another counter.
> > 
> 
> All counters are equivalent for them. It doesn't matter if we move it to
> another counter. There is no impact for the user.

But we cannot move it to another counter, because you're pinning it.

> In the new proposal, KVM user is treated the same as other host events with
> event constraint. The scheduler is free to choose whether or not to assign a
> counter for it.

That's what it does, I understand that. I'm saying that that is creating
artificial contention.


Why is this needed anyway? Can't we force the guest to flush and then
move it over to a new counter?