mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
	Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@intel.com>,
	Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
	Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>,
	Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
	Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/pmu: Define KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC for platform independence
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:35:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4b57f565-25b0-4b97-ac78-4913a8b1d225@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZnRV6XrKkVwZB2TN@google.com>


On 6/21/2024 12:16 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>> The existing macro, KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC, ambiguously represents the
>> maximum supported General Purpose (GP) counter number for both Intel and
>> AMD platforms. This could lead to issues if AMD begins to support more GP
>> counters than Intel.
>>
>> To resolve this, a new platform-independent macro, KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC,
>> is introduced to represent the maximum GP counter number across all x86
>> platforms.
>>
>> No logic changes are introduced in this patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 9 +++++----
>>  arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c          | 2 +-
>>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c    | 2 ++
>>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 57440bda4dc4..18137be6504a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -534,11 +534,12 @@ struct kvm_pmc {
>>  
>>  /* More counters may conflict with other existing Architectural MSRs */
>>  #define KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC	8
>> -#define MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR_MAX	(MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC - 1)
>> -#define MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_MAX	(MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC - 1)
>> +#define KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC	6
>> +#define KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC		KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC
> Since we're changing the macro, maybe take the opportunity to use a better name?
> E.g. KVM_MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS?  And then in a follow-up patch, give fixed counters
> the same treatment, e.g. KVM_MAX_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS.  Or maybe KVM_MAX_NR_GP_PMCS
> and KVM_MAX_NR_FIXED_PMCS?

Yeah, would change to KVM_MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS and KVM_MAX_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS
in next version.


>
>> +#define MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR_MAX	(MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC - 1)
>> +#define MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_MAX	(MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC - 1)
> And I'm very, very tempted to say we should simply delete these two, along with
> MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR_MAX, and just open code the "end" MSR in the one user.
> Especially since "KVM" doesn't appear anyone in the name, i.e. because the names
> misrepresent KVM's semi-arbitrary max as the *architectural* max.

Agree. MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR_MAX indeed brings some misleading which
make users think it's a HW's limitation instead of KVM's limitation.


>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 6ad19d913d31..547dfe40d017 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -7432,17 +7432,20 @@ static void kvm_probe_msr_to_save(u32 msr_index)
>                      intel_pt_validate_hw_cap(PT_CAP_num_address_ranges) * 2))
>                         return;
>                 break;
> -       case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 ... MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR_MAX:
> +       case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 ...
> +            MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + KVM_MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS - 1:
>                 if (msr_index - MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 >=
>                     kvm_pmu_cap.num_counters_gp)
>                         return;
>                 break;
> -       case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 ... MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_MAX:
> +       case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 ...
> +            MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + KVM_MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS - 1:
>                 if (msr_index - MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 >=
>                     kvm_pmu_cap.num_counters_gp)
>                         return;
>                 break;
> -       case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 ... MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR_MAX:
> +       case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 ...
> +            MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 + KVM_MAR_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS - 1:
>                 if (msr_index - MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 >=
>                     kvm_pmu_cap.num_counters_fixed)
>                         return;

Thanks.


>
>>  #define KVM_PMC_MAX_FIXED	3
>>  #define MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR_MAX	(MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 + KVM_PMC_MAX_FIXED - 1)
>> -#define KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC	6
>>  
>>  struct kvm_pmu {
>>  	u8 version;
>> @@ -554,7 +555,7 @@ struct kvm_pmu {
>>  	u64 global_status_rsvd;
>>  	u64 reserved_bits;
>>  	u64 raw_event_mask;
>> -	struct kvm_pmc gp_counters[KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC];
>> +	struct kvm_pmc gp_counters[KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC];
>>  	struct kvm_pmc fixed_counters[KVM_PMC_MAX_FIXED];
>>  
>>  	/*
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c
>> index 6e908bdc3310..2fca247798eb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/pmu.c
>> @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static void amd_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	int i;
>>  
>>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC > AMD64_NUM_COUNTERS_CORE);
>> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC > INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC);
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC > KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC);
>>  
>>  	for (i = 0; i < KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC ; i++) {
>>  		pmu->gp_counters[i].type = KVM_PMC_GP;
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
>> index fb5cbd6cbeff..a4b0bee04596 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
>> @@ -570,6 +570,8 @@ static void intel_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
>>  	struct lbr_desc *lbr_desc = vcpu_to_lbr_desc(vcpu);
>>  
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC > KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC);
> Rather than BUILD_BUG_ON() for both Intel and AMD, can't we just do?
>
> #define KVM_MAX_NR_GP_COUNTERS max(KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC, KVM_AMD_PMC_MAX_GENERIC)

Actually I tried this, but compiler would report the below error since
KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC would used to define the array
gp_counters[KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC];

./include/linux/minmax.h:48:50: error: braced-group within expression
allowed only inside a function

>
>> +
>>  	for (i = 0; i < KVM_INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC; i++) {
>>  		pmu->gp_counters[i].type = KVM_PMC_GP;
>>  		pmu->gp_counters[i].vcpu = vcpu;
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>

  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-21  2:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-19 18:21 [PATCH 0/2] KVM vPMU code refine Dapeng Mi
2024-06-19 18:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/pmu: Define KVM_PMC_MAX_GENERIC for platform independence Dapeng Mi
2024-06-20 16:16   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-06-21  2:35     ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2024-06-21 13:48       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-06-19 18:21 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests: kvm: Reduce verbosity of "Random seed" messages Dapeng Mi
2024-06-20 18:13   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-06-21  2:51     ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-06-21 13:29       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-06-26  1:57         ` Mi, Dapeng
2024-06-20 16:07 ` [PATCH 0/2] KVM vPMU code refine Sean Christopherson
2024-06-21  0:28   ` Mi, Dapeng

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4b57f565-25b0-4b97-ac78-4913a8b1d225@linux.intel.com \
    --to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=cloudliang@tencent.com \
    --cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=like.xu.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mizhang@google.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=xiong.y.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhenyuw@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome