Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 4/5] perf/x86/lbr: Skip checking for the existence of LBR_TOS for Arch LBR

[Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>]

On 2021/3/24 5:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:06:34PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> The Architecture LBR does not have MSR_LBR_TOS (0x000001c9). KVM will
>> generate #GP for this MSR access, thereby preventing the initialization
>> of the guest LBR.
>>
>> Fixes: 47125db27e47 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support Architectural LBR")
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> index 382dd3994463..7f6d748421f2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> @@ -5740,7 +5740,8 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>>   	 * Check all LBR MSR here.
>>   	 * Disable LBR access if any LBR MSRs can not be accessed.
>>   	 */
>> -	if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
>> +	if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR) &&
>> +	    !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
>>   		x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
> 
> But when ARCH_LBR we don't set lbr_tos, so we check MSR 0x000, not 0x1c9.

It's true.

> 
> Do we want check_msr() to ignore msr==0 ?

Considering another target of check_msr() is for uncore msrs,
how about this change:

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 759226919a36..06fa31a01a5b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -4704,10 +4704,10 @@ static bool check_msr(unsigned long msr, u64 mask)
         u64 val_old, val_new, val_tmp;

         /*
-        * Disable the check for real HW, so we don't
+        * Disable the check for real HW or non-sense msr, so we don't
          * mess with potentionaly enabled registers:
          */
-       if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
+       if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) || !msr)
                 return true;

         /*


> Additionally, do we want a check for lbr_info ?

I am not inclined to do this because we may have
virtualized model-specific guest LBR support
which may break the cpu_model assumption.

> 
>>   	for (i = 0; i < x86_pmu.lbr_nr; i++) {
>>   		if (!(check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_from + i, 0xffffUL) &&
>> -- 
>> 2.29.2
>>