Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82460-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:11:04 -0800
In-Reply-To: <585a36d2-6e46-44a0-8224-8d4cd54d0dd3@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20231206032054.55070-1-likexu@tencent.com> <ZcKKwSi7FdbSnexE@google.com>
 <ZcKf3RvyoVJ77sUQ@google.com> <585a36d2-6e46-44a0-8224-8d4cd54d0dd3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Zd0omLAgMu2P3lWX@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/intr: Explicitly check NMI from guest to
 eliminate false positives
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024, Like Xu wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 5:08 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Never mind, this causes KUT's pmu_pebs test to fail:
> > 
> >    FAIL: Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> > 
> > It might be a test bug, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to
> > investigate.
> 
> For PEBS ovf case, we have "in_nmi() = 0x100000" from the core kernel and
> the following diff fixes the issue:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 995760ba072f..dcf665251fce 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1891,7 +1891,7 @@ enum kvm_intr_type {
>  /* Enable perf NMI and timer modes to work, and minimise false positives. */
>  #define kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest(vcpu) \
>  	((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest && \
> -	 (in_nmi() == ((vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest == KVM_HANDLING_NMI)))
> +	 (!!in_nmi() == ((vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest == KVM_HANDLING_NMI)))
> 
>  void __init kvm_mmu_x86_module_init(void);
>  int kvm_mmu_vendor_module_init(void);
> 
> , does it help (tests passed on ICX) ?

Yes, that resolves the issues I was seeing.  I'll get this applied with the above
squashed.

I'll also see if the tip tree folks would be open to converting the in_{nmi,hardirq,...}()
macros to functions that return bools (or at least casting to bools in the macros).
I can't see any reason for in_nmi() to effectively return an int since it's just
a wrapper to nmi_count(), and this seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

> > If you want any chance of your patches going anywhere but my trash folder, you
> > need to change your upstream workflow to actually run tests.  I would give most
> > people the benefit of the doubt, e.g. assume they didn't have the requisite
> > hardware, or didn't realize which tests would be relevant/important.  But this
> > is a recurring problem, and you have been warned, multiple times.
> 
> Sorry, my CI resources are diverted to other downstream projects.
> But there's no doubt it's my fault and this behavior will be corrected.

Thank you.