Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:42:19 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, eranian@google.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, wei.w.wang@intel.com,
        luwei.kang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] perf: x86/ds: Handle guest PEBS overflow PMI
 and inject it to guest
Message-ID: <YAHT+zLiIg/oUygZ@google.com>
References: <20210104131542.495413-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20210104131542.495413-5-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <YACTnkdi1rxfrRCg@google.com>
 <a0b5dc29-e63f-6ec9-a03f-6435cb3373c6@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a0b5dc29-e63f-6ec9-a03f-6435cb3373c6@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2021/1/15 2:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
> > > +	 * Note: KVM disables the co-existence of guest PEBS and host PEBS.
> > By "KVM", do you mean KVM's loading of the MSRs provided by intel_guest_get_msrs()?
> > Because the PMU should really be the entity that controls guest vs. host.  KVM
> > should just be a dumb pipe that handles the mechanics of how values are context
> > switch.
> 
> The intel_guest_get_msrs() and atomic_switch_perf_msrs()
> will work together to disable the co-existence of guest PEBS and host PEBS:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/961e6135-ff6d-86d1-3b7b-a1846ad0e4c4@intel.com/
> 
> +
> 
> static void atomic_switch_perf_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> ...
> ??? if (nr_msrs > 2 && (msrs[1].guest & msrs[0].guest)) {
> ??? ??? msrs[2].guest = pmu->ds_area;
> ??? ??? if (nr_msrs > 3)
> ??? ??? ??? msrs[3].guest = pmu->pebs_data_cfg;
> ??? }
> 
> ?? for (i = 0; i < nr_msrs; i++)
> ...

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm complaining about.  Splitting the logic for
determining the guest values is unnecessarily confusing, and as evidenced by the
PEBS_ENABLE bug, potentially fragile.  Perf should have full knowledge and
control of what values are loaded for the guest.  And, the above indexing magic
is nigh impossible to follow and _super_ fragile.

If we change .guest_get_msrs() to take a struct kvm_pmu pointer, then it can
generate the full set of guest values by grabbing ds_area and pebs_data_cfg.
Alternatively, .guest_get_msrs() could take the desired guest MSR values
directly (ds_area and pebs_data_cfg), but kvm_pmu is vendor agnostic, so I don't
see any reason to not just pass the pointer.