Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Test top-down slots event

[Mi, Dapeng]

On 2/3/2024 1:24 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> > On 2/2/2024 2:02 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> > > > Although the fixed counter 3 and the exclusive pseudo slots events is
> > > > not supported by KVM yet, the architectural slots event is supported by
> > > > KVM and can be programed on any GP counter. Thus add validation for this
> > > > architectural slots event.
> > > >
> > > > Top-down slots event "counts the total number of available slots for an
> > > > unhalted logical processor, and increments by machine-width of the
> > > > narrowest pipeline as employed by the Top-down Microarchitecture
> > > > Analysis method." So suppose the measured count of slots event would be
> > > > always larger than 0.
> > > Please translate that into something non-perf folks can understand.  I know what
> > > a pipeline slot is, and I know a dictionary's definition of "available" is, but I
> > > still have no idea what this event actually counts.  In other words, I want a
> > > precise definition of exactly what constitutes an "available slot", in verbiage
> > > that anyone with basic understanding of x86 architectures can follow after reading
> > > the whitepaper[*], which is helpful for understanding the concepts, but doesn't
> > > crisply explain what this event counts.
> > >
> > > Examples of when a slot is available vs. unavailable would be extremely helpful.
> > >
> > > [*] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/vtune-profiler/cookbook/2023-0/top-down-microarchitecture-analysis-method.html
> > Yeah, indeed, 'slots' is not easily understood from its literal meaning. I
> > also took some time to understand it when I look at this event for the first
> > time. Simply speaking, slots is an abstract concept which indicates how many
> > uops (decoded from instructions) can be processed simultaneously (per cycle)
> > on HW. we assume there is a classic 5-stage pipeline, fetch, decode,
> > execute, memory access and register writeback. In topdown
> > micro-architectural analysis method, the former two stages (fetch/decode) is
> > called front-end and the last three stages are called back-end.
> >
> > In modern Intel processors, a complicated instruction could be decoded into
> > several uops (micro-operations) and so these uops can be processed
> > simultaneously and then improve the performance. Thus, assume a processor
> > can decode and dispatch 4 uops in front-end and execute 4 uops in back-end
> > simultaneously (per-cycle), so we would say this processor has 4 topdown
> > slots per-cycle. If a slot is spare and can be used to process new uop, we
> > say it's available, but if a slot is occupied by a uop for several cycles
> > and not retired (maybe blocked by memory access), we say this slot is stall
> > and unavailable.
> In that case, can't the test assert that the count is at least NUM_INSNS_RETIRED?
> AFAIK, none of the sequences in the measured code can be fused, i.e. the test can
> assert that every instruction requires at least one uop, and IIUC, actually
> executing a uop requires an available slot at _some_ time.


Yeah, looks the instruction sequence can't be marco-fused on x86 
platforms, the slots count should be equal or larger than 
NUM_INSNS_RETIRED.


> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> index ae5f6042f1e8..29609b52f8fa 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> @@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx,
>          case INTEL_ARCH_REFERENCE_CYCLES_INDEX:
>                  GUEST_ASSERT_NE(count, 0);
>                  break;
> +       case INTEL_ARCH_TOPDOWN_SLOTS_INDEX:
> +               GUEST_ASSERT(count >= NUM_INSNS_RETIRED);
> +               break;
>          default:
>                  break;
>          }