Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141608-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <f18c309d-f5dd-4b55-a55e-aa77ee334cd9@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:04:52 -0400
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/41] perf: x86/intel: Support
 PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
 Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@linux.intel.com>, pbonzini@redhat.com,
 peterz@infradead.org, mizhang@google.com, kan.liang@intel.com,
 zhenyuw@linux.intel.com, dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 zhiyuan.lv@intel.com, eranian@google.com, irogers@google.com,
 samantha.alt@intel.com, like.xu.linux@gmail.com, chao.gao@intel.com
References: <20240126085444.324918-1-xiong.y.zhang@linux.intel.com>
 <20240126085444.324918-2-xiong.y.zhang@linux.intel.com>
 <ZhgYD4B1szpbvlHq@google.com>
 <56a98cae-36c5-40f8-8554-77f9d9c9a1b0@linux.intel.com>
 <CALMp9eRwsyBUHRtjKZDyU6i13hr5tif3ty7tpNjfs=Zq3RA8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zhgh_vQYx2MCzma6@google.com>
 <afb9faeb-11f4-47a2-a77b-4f2496182952@linux.intel.com>
 <ZhhLZFcNhTIidGRy@google.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZhhLZFcNhTIidGRy@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024-04-11 4:43 p.m., Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> And peeking ahead, IIUC perf effectively _forces_ a passthrough model when
>>> has_vpmu_passthrough_cap() is true, which is wrong.  There needs to be a user/admin
>>> opt-in (or opt-out) to that behavior, at a kernel/perf level, not just at a KVM
>>> level.  Hmm, or is perf relying on KVM to do that right thing?  I.e. relying on
>>> KVM to do perf_guest_{enter,exit}() if and only if the PMU can support the
>>> passthrough model.
>>>
>> Yes, perf relies on KVM to tell if a guest is entering the passthrough mode.
>>
>>> If that's the case, most of the has_vpmu_passthrough_cap() checks are gratiutous
>>> and confusing, e.g. just WARN if KVM (or some other module) tries to trigger a
>>> PMU context switch when it's not supported by perf.
>> If there is only non supported PMUs running in the host, perf wouldn't
>> do any context switch. The guest can feel free to use the core PMU. We
>> should not WARN for this case.
> I'm struggling to wrap my head around this.  If there is no supported PMU in the
> host, how can there be a core PMU for the guest to use?  KVM virtualizes a PMU
> if and only if kvm_init_pmu_capability() reports a compatible PMU, and IIUC that
> reporting is done based on the core PMU.
> 
> Specifically, I want to ensure we don't screw is passing through PMU MSR access,
> e.g. because KVM thinks perf will context switch those MSRs, but perf doesn't

Perf only context switches the MSRs of the PMU with the
PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH flag. (Only the core PMU for this RFC).

For other PMUs without the PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH, perf does
nothing in perf_guest_enter/exit().

KVM can rely on the flag to decide whether to enable the passthrough
mode for the PMU.

Thanks,
Kan