Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event_filter to improved event filter settings

From: Jinrong Liang
Date: Tue Jul 18 2023 - 23:29:08 EST

Next message: Wei Fang: "RE: [PATCH net-next] net: fec: add XDP_TX feature support"
Previous message: syzbot: "[syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in walk_component (2)"
In reply to: Isaku Yamahata: "Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event_filter to improved event filter settings"
Next in thread: Jinrong Liang: "[PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: selftests: Add test cases for unsupported PMU event filter input values"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx> 于2023年7月19日周三 08:02写道：
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 02:23:40PM +0800,
> Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c | 179 +++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 87 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..ffcbbf25b29b 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 +293,70 @@ 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 = base_event_filter;
> >
> > - f = create_pmu_event_filter(&event, 1, KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY, 0);
> > - test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> > - free(f);
> > + f.action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY;
> > + f.nevents = 1;
> > + f.events[0] = EVENT(0x1C2, 0);
> > + test_with_filter(vcpu, &f);
>
> This overwrite all members. We can use designated initializer.
> struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f = {
> .action = KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY,
> .nevents = 1,
> .events = {
> EVENT(0x1C2, 0),
> },
> };

LGTM.

>
> Except this, looks good to me.
> Reviewed-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > 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;
> > +
> > + 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);
> > - 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_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;
> >
> > - 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_ALLOW;
> > +
> > + 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 +551,16 @@ 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 +732,27 @@ 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 +764,18 @@ 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");
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.3
> >
>
> --
> Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>

Next message: Wei Fang: "RE: [PATCH net-next] net: fec: add XDP_TX feature support"
Previous message: syzbot: "[syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in walk_component (2)"
In reply to: Isaku Yamahata: "Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event_filter to improved event filter settings"
Next in thread: Jinrong Liang: "[PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: selftests: Add test cases for unsupported PMU event filter input values"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]