Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-158442-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:47:58 +0530
From: Naveen N Rao <naveen@kernel.org>
To: Gautam Menghani <gautam@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com, Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>, 
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND] arch/powerpc/kvm: Add support for reading VPA
 counters for pseries guests
Message-ID: <ne4jzv6dyremumuulw6c5zcwgncz5igsesfmlazg4jxmkaz3te@jpqv3qfo7jlb>
References: <20240402070656.28441-1-gautam@linux.ibm.com>
 <aauzmvtbpgxbr4aa3s4k33cdi7fljs5q4ifn5x2swncz7dtvam@gclohylavkpl>
 <ualscagnpj54rvn33ncaznp7ibvvqulhrmq46qsg73wokgswxy@naopf7leuk66>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ualscagnpj54rvn33ncaznp7ibvvqulhrmq46qsg73wokgswxy@naopf7leuk66>

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:08:38AM +0530, Gautam Menghani wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 09:15:02PM +0530, Naveen N Rao wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:36:54PM +0530, Gautam Menghani wrote:
> > >  static int kvmhv_vcpu_entry_nestedv2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 
> > >  time_limit,
> > >  				     unsigned long lpcr, u64 *tb)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -4130,6 +4161,11 @@ static int kvmhv_vcpu_entry_nestedv2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 time_limit,
> > >  	kvmppc_gse_put_u64(io->vcpu_run_input, KVMPPC_GSID_LPCR, lpcr);
> > >  
> > >  	accumulate_time(vcpu, &vcpu->arch.in_guest);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Enable the guest host context switch time tracking */
> > > +	if (unlikely(trace_kvmppc_vcpu_exit_cs_time_enabled()))
> > > +		kvmhv_set_l2_accumul(1);
> > > +
> > >  	rc = plpar_guest_run_vcpu(0, vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid, vcpu->vcpu_id,
> > >  				  &trap, &i);
> > >  
> > > @@ -4156,6 +4192,10 @@ static int kvmhv_vcpu_entry_nestedv2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 time_limit,
> > >  
> > >  	timer_rearm_host_dec(*tb);
> > >  
> > > +	/* Record context switch and guest_run_time data */
> > > +	if (kvmhv_get_l2_accumul())
> > > +		do_trace_nested_cs_time(vcpu);
> > > +
> > >  	return trap;
> > >  }
> > 
> > I'm assuming the counters in VPA are cumulative, since you are zero'ing 
> > them out on exit. If so, I think a better way to implement this is to 
> > use TRACE_EVENT_FN() and provide tracepoint registration and 
> > unregistration functions. You can then enable the counters once during 
> > registration and avoid repeated writes to the VPA area. With that, you 
> > also won't need to do anything before vcpu entry. If you maintain 
> > previous values, you can calculate the delta and emit the trace on vcpu 
> > exit. The values in VPA area can then serve as the cumulative values.
> > 
> 
> This approach will have a problem. The context switch times are reported
> in the L1 LPAR's CPU's VPA area. Consider the following scenario:
> 
> 1. L1 has 2 cpus, and L2 has 1 cpu
> 2. L2 runs on L1's cpu0 for a few seconds, and the counter values go to
> 1 million
> 3. We are maintaining a copy of values of VPA in separate variables, so
> those variables also have 1 million.
> 4. Now if L2's vcpu is migrated to another L1 cpu, that L1 cpu's VPA
> counters will start from 0, so if we try to get delta value, we will end
> up doing 0 - 1 million, which would be wrong.

I'm assuming you mean migrating the task. If we maintain the previous 
readings in paca, it should work I think.

> 
> The aggregation logic in this patch works as we zero out the VPA after
> every switch, and maintain aggregation in a vcpu->arch

Are the cumulative values of the VPA counters of no significance? We 
lose those with this approach. Not sure if we care.


- Naveen