Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v11 for-xen-4.5 16/20] x86/VPMU: Handle PMU interrupts for PV guests

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:31:39PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >  int vpmu_do_interrupt(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
> >  {
> > -    struct vcpu *v = current;
> > -    struct vpmu_struct *vpmu = vcpu_vpmu(v);
> > +    struct vcpu *sampled = current, *sampling;
> > +    struct vpmu_struct *vpmu;
> > +
> > +    /* dom0 will handle interrupt for special domains (e.g. idle domain) */
> > +    if ( sampled->domain->domain_id >= DOMID_FIRST_RESERVED )
> > +    {
> > +        sampling = choose_hwdom_vcpu();
> > +        if ( !sampling )
> > +            return 0;
> > +    }
> > +    else
> > +        sampling = sampled;
> > +
> > +    vpmu = vcpu_vpmu(sampling);
> > +    if ( !is_hvm_domain(sampling->domain) )
> > +    {
> > +        /* PV(H) guest */
> > +        const struct cpu_user_regs *cur_regs;
> > +
> > +        if ( !vpmu->xenpmu_data )
> > +            return 0;
> > +
> > +        if ( vpmu->xenpmu_data->pmu_flags & PMU_CACHED )
> > +            return 1;
> > +
> > +        if ( is_pvh_domain(sampled->domain) &&
> > +             !vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->do_interrupt(regs) )
> > +            return 0;
> > +
> > +        /* PV guest will be reading PMU MSRs from xenpmu_data */
> 
> OK, with that nice comment I was thinking that:
> > +        vpmu_set(vpmu, VPMU_CONTEXT_SAVE | VPMU_CONTEXT_LOADED);
> > +        vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->arch_vpmu_save(sampling);
> 
> would be the one that writes the values to pmu.r.regs, but so far
> in this patchset that is not the case. It does write to the pmu.c (contexts)
> but that is not ..
> 
> > +        vpmu_reset(vpmu, VPMU_CONTEXT_SAVE | VPMU_CONTEXT_LOADED);
> > +
> > +        /* Store appropriate registers in xenpmu_data */
> > +        if ( is_pv_32bit_domain(sampling->domain) )
> > +        {
> > +            /*
> > +             * 32-bit dom0 cannot process Xen's addresses (which are 64 
> > bit)
> > +             * and therefore we treat it the same way as a non-privileged
> > +             * PV 32-bit domain.
> > +             */
> > +            struct compat_pmu_regs *cmp;
> > +
> > +            cur_regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
> > +
> > +            cmp = (void *)&vpmu->xenpmu_data->pmu.r.regs;
> 
> .. what we read from here. Did I miss a patch?
> 
> > +            cmp->eip = cur_regs->rip;
> > +            cmp->esp = cur_regs->rsp;
> > +            cmp->cs = cur_regs->cs;
> > +            if ( (cmp->cs & 3) == 1 )
> > +                cmp->cs &= ~3;
> > +        }
> > +        else
> > +        {
> > +            struct xen_pmu_regs *r = &vpmu->xenpmu_data->pmu.r.regs;
> 
> Ditto here.
> 
> Perhaps a comment stating _who_ (or _what_) is responsible for populating
> the 'pmu.r.regs' structure?
> 
> > +
> > +            /* Non-privileged domains are always in XENPMU_MODE_SELF mode 
> > */
> > +            if ( (vpmu_mode & XENPMU_MODE_SELF) ||
> > +                 (!is_hardware_domain(sampled->domain) &&
> > +                  !is_idle_vcpu(sampled)) )
> > +                cur_regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
> > +            else
> > +                cur_regs = regs;
> > +
> > +            r->rip = cur_regs->rip;
> > +            r->rsp = cur_regs->rsp;
> > +
> > +            if ( !is_pvh_domain(sampled->domain) )
> > +            {
> > +                r->cs = cur_regs->cs;
> > +                if ( sampled->arch.flags & TF_kernel_mode )
> > +                    r->cs &= ~3;
> > +            }
> > +            else
> > +            {
> > +                struct segment_register seg_cs;
> > +
> > +                hvm_get_segment_register(sampled, x86_seg_cs, &seg_cs);
> > +                r->cs = seg_cs.sel;
> > +            }
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        vpmu->xenpmu_data->domain_id = DOMID_SELF;
> > +        vpmu->xenpmu_data->vcpu_id = sampled->vcpu_id;
> > +        vpmu->xenpmu_data->pcpu_id = smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > +        vpmu->xenpmu_data->pmu_flags |= PMU_CACHED;
> > +        vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc |= APIC_LVT_MASKED;
> 
> Right, especially as core2_vpmu_do_interrupt (which is called earlier)
> does:
> 
>   vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc = apic_read(APIC_LVTPC) & ~APIC_LVT_MASKED;            
>   apic_write_around(APIC_LVTPC, vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc);
> 
> So here we mask it
> 
> > +        apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc);
> 
> Hm, so for Intel we would do _two_ apic_writes ?
> 
> Anyhow,  we mask it here..
> .. snip..
> >      case XENPMU_lvtpc_set:
> > -        if ( current->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data == NULL )
> > +        curr = current;
> > +        if ( curr->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data == NULL )
> >              return -EINVAL;
> > -        
> > vpmu_lvtpc_update(current->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data->pmu.l.lapic_lvtpc);
> > +        vpmu_lvtpc_update(curr->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data->pmu.l.lapic_lvtpc);
> > +        ret = 0;
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    case XENPMU_flush:
> > +        curr = current;
> > +        curr->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data->pmu_flags &= ~PMU_CACHED;
> > +        vpmu_lvtpc_update(curr->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data->pmu.l.lapic_lvtpc);
> 
> And this code does:
> 
> +void vpmu_lvtpc_update(uint32_t val)
> +{
> +    struct vpmu_struct *vpmu = vcpu_vpmu(current);
> +
> +    vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc = PMU_APIC_VECTOR | (val & APIC_LVT_MASKED);
> +    apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc);
> +}

Ignore that paste please. After I sent this I scrolled up and saw that you
had updated 'vpmu_lvtpc_update' to not do the apic_write if the PMU_CACHED
bit is set.
> +
> 
> And we over-write vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc with the new value. The 'val'
> here is important as it may have APIC_LVT_MASKED or not. We get that
> from ' curr->arch.vpmu.xenpmu_data->pmu.l.lapic_lvtp ' but I am
> not seeing who sets it. I was thinking the XENPMU_lvtpc_set but that
> calls vpmu_lvtpc_update which will update the vpmu->hw_lapic_lvtpc 
> with the APIC_LVT_MASKED if set.
> 
> So who sets it?
> 
> Anyhow, with it being zero, that means the APIC_LVT_MASKED is unset, so
> interrupts are free to go, and here:
> 
> > +        vpmu_load(curr);
> 
> We do another 'apic_write_around' with the hw_lapic_lvtpc value. So two
> apci_writes to unmask it. (Or mask it back if the l.lapic_lvtpc has
> APIC_LVT_MASKED set).
> 
> Should the XENPMU_flush check if:
> 
>  - The PMU_CACHED bit is set (and if not then -EAGAIN?)
>  - The APIC_LVT_MASKED was set (and if so, then unmaks it). If it is
>    not set, then no need to do apic_write?

And you patch does that already. Lets skip that question.
> 
> ?
> >          ret = 0;
> >          break;
> >      }
> > diff --git a/xen/include/public/pmu.h b/xen/include/public/pmu.h
> > index 68a5fb8..a1886a5 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/public/pmu.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/pmu.h
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> >  #define XENPMU_init            4
> >  #define XENPMU_finish          5
> >  #define XENPMU_lvtpc_set       6
> > +#define XENPMU_flush           7 /* Write cached MSR values to HW     */
> >  /* ` } */
> >  
> >  /* Parameters structure for HYPERVISOR_xenpmu_op call */
> > @@ -61,6 +62,12 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_pmu_params_t);
> >   */
> >  #define XENPMU_FEATURE_INTEL_BTS  1
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * PMU MSRs are cached in the context so the PV guest doesn't need to trap 
> > to
> > + * the hypervisor
> > + */
> > +#define PMU_CACHED 1
> > +
> >  /* Shared between hypervisor and PV domain */
> >  struct xen_pmu_data {
> >      uint32_t domain_id;
> > -- 
> > 1.8.1.4
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel