From: JinrongLiang <ljr.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event_filter to improved event filter settings
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:09:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <853bac52-94e9-882c-c71b-ad6ae5f9c067@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230810090945.16053-4-cloudliang@tencent.com>
在 2023/8/10 17:09, Jinrong Liang 写道:
> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
>
> Add custom "__kvm_pmu_event_filter" structure to improve pmu event
> filter settings. Simplifies event filter setup by organizing event
> filter parameters in a cleaner, more organized way.
I apologize for the oversight in this patch submission. I forgot to
include the "Reviewed-by" tag. Please find the updated information below:
Reviewed-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
When reviewing the patch, please take this tag into account.
>
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
> ---
> .../kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c | 182 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> index 5ac05e64bec9..94f5a89aac40 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,10 @@
>
> #define NUM_BRANCHES 42
>
> +/* Matches KVM_PMU_EVENT_FILTER_MAX_EVENTS in pmu.c */
> +#define MAX_FILTER_EVENTS 300
> +#define MAX_TEST_EVENTS 10
> +
> /*
> * This is how the event selector and unit mask are stored in an AMD
> * core performance event-select register. Intel's format is similar,
> @@ -69,21 +73,33 @@
>
> #define INST_RETIRED EVENT(0xc0, 0)
>
> +struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter {
> + __u32 action;
> + __u32 nevents;
> + __u32 fixed_counter_bitmap;
> + __u32 flags;
> + __u32 pad[4];
> + __u64 events[MAX_FILTER_EVENTS];
> +};
> +
> /*
> * This event list comprises Intel's eight architectural events plus
> * AMD's "retired branch instructions" for Zen[123] (and possibly
> * other AMD CPUs).
> */
> -static const uint64_t event_list[] = {
> - EVENT(0x3c, 0),
> - INST_RETIRED,
> - EVENT(0x3c, 1),
> - EVENT(0x2e, 0x4f),
> - EVENT(0x2e, 0x41),
> - EVENT(0xc4, 0),
> - EVENT(0xc5, 0),
> - EVENT(0xa4, 1),
> - AMD_ZEN_BR_RETIRED,
> +static const struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter base_event_filter = {
> + .nevents = ARRAY_SIZE(base_event_filter.events),
> + .events = {
> + EVENT(0x3c, 0),
> + INST_RETIRED,
> + EVENT(0x3c, 1),
> + EVENT(0x2e, 0x4f),
> + EVENT(0x2e, 0x41),
> + EVENT(0xc4, 0),
> + EVENT(0xc5, 0),
> + EVENT(0xa4, 1),
> + AMD_ZEN_BR_RETIRED,
> + },
> };
>
> struct {
> @@ -225,47 +241,11 @@ static bool sanity_check_pmu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return !r;
> }
>
> -static struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *alloc_pmu_event_filter(uint32_t nevents)
> -{
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f;
> - int size = sizeof(*f) + nevents * sizeof(f->events[0]);
> -
> - f = malloc(size);
> - TEST_ASSERT(f, "Out of memory");
> - memset(f, 0, size);
> - f->nevents = nevents;
> - return f;
> -}
> -
> -
> -static struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *
> -create_pmu_event_filter(const uint64_t event_list[], int nevents,
> - uint32_t action, uint32_t flags)
> -{
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f;
> - int i;
> -
> - f = alloc_pmu_event_filter(nevents);
> - f->action = action;
> - f->flags = flags;
> - for (i = 0; i < nevents; i++)
> - f->events[i] = event_list[i];
> -
> - return f;
> -}
> -
> -static struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *event_filter(uint32_t action)
> -{
> - return create_pmu_event_filter(event_list,
> - ARRAY_SIZE(event_list),
> - action, 0);
> -}
> -
> /*
> * Remove the first occurrence of 'event' (if any) from the filter's
> * event list.
> */
> -static void remove_event(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f, uint64_t event)
> +static void remove_event(struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter *f, uint64_t event)
> {
> bool found = false;
> int i;
> @@ -313,66 +293,73 @@ static void test_without_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> }
>
> static void test_with_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f)
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter *__f)
> {
> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f = (void *)__f;
> +
> vm_ioctl(vcpu->vm, KVM_SET_PMU_EVENT_FILTER, f);
> run_vcpu_and_sync_pmc_results(vcpu);
> }
>
> static void test_amd_deny_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - uint64_t event = EVENT(0x1C2, 0);
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f;
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = {
> + .action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY,
> + .nevents = 1,
> + .events = {
> + EVENT(0x1C2, 0),
> + },
> + };
>
> - f = create_pmu_event_filter(&event, 1, KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY, 0);
> - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> - free(f);
> + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
>
> ASSERT_PMC_COUNTING_INSTRUCTIONS();
> }
>
> static void test_member_deny_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f = event_filter(KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY);
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = base_event_filter;
>
> - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> - free(f);
> + f.action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY;
> + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
>
> ASSERT_PMC_NOT_COUNTING_INSTRUCTIONS();
> }
>
> static void test_member_allow_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f = event_filter(KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW);
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = base_event_filter;
>
> - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> - free(f);
> + f.action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW;
> + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
>
> ASSERT_PMC_COUNTING_INSTRUCTIONS();
> }
>
> static void test_not_member_deny_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f = event_filter(KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY);
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = base_event_filter;
>
> - remove_event(f, INST_RETIRED);
> - remove_event(f, INTEL_BR_RETIRED);
> - remove_event(f, AMD_ZEN_BR_RETIRED);
> - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> - free(f);
> + f.action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY;
> +
> + remove_event(&f, INST_RETIRED);
> + remove_event(&f, INTEL_BR_RETIRED);
> + remove_event(&f, AMD_ZEN_BR_RETIRED);
> + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
>
> ASSERT_PMC_COUNTING_INSTRUCTIONS();
> }
>
> static void test_not_member_allow_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f = event_filter(KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW);
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = base_event_filter;
> +
> + f.action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW;
>
> - remove_event(f, INST_RETIRED);
> - remove_event(f, INTEL_BR_RETIRED);
> - remove_event(f, AMD_ZEN_BR_RETIRED);
> - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> - free(f);
> + remove_event(&f, INST_RETIRED);
> + remove_event(&f, INTEL_BR_RETIRED);
> + remove_event(&f, AMD_ZEN_BR_RETIRED);
> + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
>
> ASSERT_PMC_NOT_COUNTING_INSTRUCTIONS();
> }
> @@ -567,19 +554,16 @@ static void run_masked_events_test(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const uint64_t masked_events[],
> const int nmasked_events)
> {
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f;
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = {
> + .nevents = nmasked_events,
> + .action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW,
> + .flags = KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS,
> + };
>
> - f = create_pmu_event_filter(masked_events, nmasked_events,
> - KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW,
> - KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS);
> - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> - free(f);
> + memcpy(f.events, masked_events, sizeof(uint64_t) * nmasked_events);
> + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
> }
>
> -/* Matches KVM_PMU_EVENT_FILTER_MAX_EVENTS in pmu.c */
> -#define MAX_FILTER_EVENTS 300
> -#define MAX_TEST_EVENTS 10
> -
> #define ALLOW_LOADS BIT(0)
> #define ALLOW_STORES BIT(1)
> #define ALLOW_LOADS_STORES BIT(2)
> @@ -751,17 +735,27 @@ static void test_masked_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> run_masked_events_tests(vcpu, events, nevents);
> }
>
> -static int run_filter_test(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const uint64_t *events,
> - int nevents, uint32_t flags)
> +static int do_vcpu_set_pmu_event_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter *__f)
> {
> - struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f;
> - int r;
> + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f = (void *)__f;
>
> - f = create_pmu_event_filter(events, nevents, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW, flags);
> - r = __vm_ioctl(vcpu->vm, KVM_SET_PMU_EVENT_FILTER, f);
> - free(f);
> + return __vm_ioctl(vcpu->vm, KVM_SET_PMU_EVENT_FILTER, f);
> +}
> +
> +static int set_pmu_single_event_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t event,
> + uint32_t flags, uint32_t action)
> +{
> + struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = {
> + .nevents = 1,
> + .flags = flags,
> + .action = action,
> + .events = {
> + event,
> + },
> + };
>
> - return r;
> + return do_vcpu_set_pmu_event_filter(vcpu, &f);
> }
>
> static void test_filter_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> @@ -773,14 +767,18 @@ static void test_filter_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> * Unfortunately having invalid bits set in event data is expected to
> * pass when flags == 0 (bits other than eventsel+umask).
> */
> - r = run_filter_test(vcpu, &e, 1, 0);
> + r = set_pmu_single_event_filter(vcpu, e, 0, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW);
> TEST_ASSERT(r == 0, "Valid PMU Event Filter is failing");
>
> - r = run_filter_test(vcpu, &e, 1, KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS);
> + r = set_pmu_single_event_filter(vcpu, e,
> + KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS,
> + KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW);
> TEST_ASSERT(r != 0, "Invalid PMU Event Filter is expected to fail");
>
> e = KVM_PMU_ENCODE_MASKED_ENTRY(0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xf);
> - r = run_filter_test(vcpu, &e, 1, KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS);
> + r = set_pmu_single_event_filter(vcpu, e,
> + KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS,
> + KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW);
> TEST_ASSERT(r == 0, "Valid PMU Event Filter is failing");
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-11 3:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-10 9:09 [PATCH v6 0/6] KVM: selftests: Improve PMU event filter settings and add test cases Jinrong Liang
2023-08-10 9:09 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] KVM: selftests: Add x86 properties for Intel PMU in processor.h Jinrong Liang
2023-08-10 9:09 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] KVM: selftests: Drop the return of remove_event() Jinrong Liang
2023-08-10 9:09 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event_filter to improved event filter settings Jinrong Liang
2023-08-11 3:09 ` JinrongLiang [this message]
2023-08-14 23:49 ` Isaku Yamahata
2023-08-15 3:41 ` Jinrong Liang
2023-08-17 20:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-17 20:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-10 9:09 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] KVM: selftests: Add test cases for unsupported PMU event filter input values Jinrong Liang
2023-08-14 23:51 ` Isaku Yamahata
2023-08-10 9:09 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] KVM: selftests: Test if event filter meets expectations on fixed counters Jinrong Liang
2023-08-15 0:07 ` Isaku Yamahata
2023-08-10 9:09 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] KVM: selftests: Test gp event filters don't affect fixed event filters Jinrong Liang
2023-08-18 0:12 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] KVM: selftests: Improve PMU event filter settings and add test cases Sean Christopherson
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=853bac52-94e9-882c-c71b-ad6ae5f9c067@gmail.com \
--to=ljr.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=aaronlewis@google.com \
--cc=cloudliang@tencent.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=isaku.yamahata@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=like.xu.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=vannapurve@google.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®