Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] KVM: selftests: Extend this_pmu_has() and kvm_pmu_has() to check arch events

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023, Jinrong Liang wrote:
> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The kvm_x86_pmu_feature struct has been updated to use the more
> descriptive name "pmu_feature" instead of "anti_feature".
> 
> Extend this_pmu_has() and kvm_pmu_has() functions to better support
> checking for Intel architectural events. Rename this_pmu_has() and
> kvm_pmu_has() to this_pmu_has_arch_event() and kvm_pmu_has_arch_event().
> 
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h  | 38 ++++++++++++++-----
>  .../kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c        |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h
> index 6b146e1c6736..ede433eb6541 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h
> @@ -280,12 +280,12 @@ struct kvm_x86_cpu_property {
>   * architectural event is supported.
>   */
>  struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature {
> -	struct kvm_x86_cpu_feature anti_feature;
> +	struct kvm_x86_cpu_feature pmu_feature;

Eh, looking at this with fresh eyes, let's just use a single character to keep
the line lengths as short as possible.  There was value in the anti_feature name,
but pmu_feature doesn't add anything IMO.

>  };
>  #define	KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(name, __bit)					\
>  ({										\
>  	struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature feature = {					\
> -		.anti_feature = KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0xa, 0, EBX, __bit),	\
> +		.pmu_feature = KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0xa, 0, EBX, __bit),		\

This needs to take in the register (EBX vs. ECX) for this helper to be useful.

>  	};									\
>  										\
>  	feature;								\
> @@ -681,12 +681,21 @@ static __always_inline bool this_cpu_has_p(struct kvm_x86_cpu_property property)
>  	return max_leaf >= property.function;
>  }
>  
> -static inline bool this_pmu_has(struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature feature)
> +static inline bool this_pmu_has_arch_event(struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature feature)

Why?  I don't see the point.  And it's confusing for fixed counters.  Yeah, fixed
counters count architectural events, but the code is asking if a _counter_ is
supported, not if the associated event is supported.  And the darn name gets too
long, too.

>  {
> -	uint32_t nr_bits = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_EBX_BIT_VECTOR_LENGTH);
> +	uint32_t nr_bits;
>  
> -	return nr_bits > feature.anti_feature.bit &&
> -	       !this_cpu_has(feature.anti_feature);
> +	if (feature.pmu_feature.reg == KVM_CPUID_EBX) {
> +		nr_bits = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_EBX_BIT_VECTOR_LENGTH);
> +		return nr_bits > feature.pmu_feature.bit &&
> +			!this_cpu_has(feature.pmu_feature);
> +	} else if (feature.pmu_feature.reg == KVM_CPUID_ECX) {
> +		nr_bits = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS);
> +		return nr_bits > feature.pmu_feature.bit ||
> +			this_cpu_has(feature.pmu_feature);
> +	} else {
> +		TEST_FAIL("Invalid register in kvm_x86_pmu_feature");

This needs to be a GUEST_ASSERT(), as the primary usage is in the guest.

And again looking at this with fresh eyes, I'd rather do

	uint32_t nr_bits;

	if (feature.f.reg == KVM_CPUID_EBX) {
		nr_bits = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_EBX_BIT_VECTOR_LENGTH);
		return nr_bits > feature.f.bit && !this_cpu_has(feature.f);
	}

	GUEST_ASSERT(feature.f.reg == KVM_CPUID_ECX);
	nr_bits = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS);
	return nr_bits > feature.f.bit || this_cpu_has(feature.f);

so that the bogus register is printed out on failure.

> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static __always_inline uint64_t this_cpu_supported_xcr0(void)
> @@ -900,12 +909,21 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_cpu_has_p(struct kvm_x86_cpu_property property)
>  	return max_leaf >= property.function;
>  }
>  
> -static inline bool kvm_pmu_has(struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature feature)
> +static inline bool kvm_pmu_has_arch_event(struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature feature)
>  {
> -	uint32_t nr_bits = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_EBX_BIT_VECTOR_LENGTH);
> +	uint32_t nr_bits;
>  
> -	return nr_bits > feature.anti_feature.bit &&
> -	       !kvm_cpu_has(feature.anti_feature);
> +	if (feature.pmu_feature.reg == KVM_CPUID_EBX) {
> +		nr_bits = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_EBX_BIT_VECTOR_LENGTH);
> +		return nr_bits > feature.pmu_feature.bit &&
> +			!kvm_cpu_has(feature.pmu_feature);
> +	} else if (feature.pmu_feature.reg == KVM_CPUID_ECX) {
> +		nr_bits = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS);
> +		return nr_bits > feature.pmu_feature.bit ||
> +			kvm_cpu_has(feature.pmu_feature);
> +	} else {
> +		TEST_FAIL("Invalid register in kvm_x86_pmu_feature");

Same thing here.

> +	}