[5.4] KVM: x86/svm: Account for family 17h event renumberings in amd_pmc_perf_hw_id

Commit Message

Kyle Huey May 8, 2022, 4:54 p.m. UTC

From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>

commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream

Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.

This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.

[0] https://rr-project.org/

Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
[Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
[Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Paolo Bonzini May 9, 2022, 11:41 a.m. UTC | #1

On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> 
> commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> 
> Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> 
> This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> 
> [0] https://rr-project.org/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
>   	[7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
>   };
>   
> +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> +	[0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> +	[1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> +	[2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> +	[3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> +	[4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> +	[5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> +	[6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> +	[7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> +};
> +
> +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> +	     ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> +
>   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
>   {
>   	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
>   				    u8 event_select,
>   				    u8 unit_mask)
>   {
> +	struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
>   	int i;
>   
> +	if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> +		event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> +	else
> +		event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> +
>   	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> -		if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> -		    && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> +		if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> +		    && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
>   			break;
>   
>   	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
>   		return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
>   
> -	return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> +	return event_mapping[i].event_type;
>   }
>   
>   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */

Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>

Thanks,

Paolo

Greg Kroah-Hartman May 10, 2022, 11:33 a.m. UTC | #2

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > 
> > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > 
> > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > 
> > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> >   	[7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> >   };
> > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > +	[0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > +	[1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > +	[2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > +	[3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > +	[4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > +	[5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > +	[6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > +	[7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > +	     ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > +
> >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> >   {
> >   	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> >   				    u8 event_select,
> >   				    u8 unit_mask)
> >   {
> > +	struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> >   	int i;
> > +	if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > +		event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > +	else
> > +		event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > +
> >   	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > -		if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > -		    && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > +		if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > +		    && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> >   			break;
> >   	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> >   		return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > -	return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > +	return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> >   }
> >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> 
> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>

Now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h

Greg Kroah-Hartman May 10, 2022, 11:37 a.m. UTC | #3

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > 
> > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > 
> > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > 
> > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> >   	[7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> >   };
> > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > +	[0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > +	[1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > +	[2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > +	[3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > +	[4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > +	[5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > +	[6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > +	[7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > +	     ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > +
> >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> >   {
> >   	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> >   				    u8 event_select,
> >   				    u8 unit_mask)
> >   {
> > +	struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> >   	int i;
> > +	if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > +		event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > +	else
> > +		event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > +
> >   	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > -		if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > -		    && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > +		if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > +		    && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> >   			break;
> >   	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> >   		return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > -	return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > +	return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> >   }
> >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> 
> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 

Wait, how was this tested?

It breaks the build:

arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’:
arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’?
  152 |         if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
      |                                ^~~
      |                                pmu


I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd.  Always at least test-build
your changes...

thanks,

greg k-h

Greg Kroah-Hartman May 10, 2022, 11:38 a.m. UTC | #4

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:37:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > 
> > > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > > 
> > > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > > 
> > > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > > 
> > > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> > >   	[7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > >   };
> > > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > > +	[0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > > +	[1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > +	[2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > > +	[3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > > +	[4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > +	[5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > > +	[6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > > +	[7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > > +	     ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > > +
> > >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> > >   				    u8 event_select,
> > >   				    u8 unit_mask)
> > >   {
> > > +	struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> > >   	int i;
> > > +	if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > +		event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > > +	else
> > > +		event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > > +
> > >   	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > > -		if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > -		    && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > +		if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > +		    && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > >   			break;
> > >   	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> > >   		return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > > -	return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > +	return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > >   }
> > >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> > 
> > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Paolo
> > 
> 
> Wait, how was this tested?
> 
> It breaks the build:
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’:
> arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’?
>   152 |         if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
>       |                                ^~~
>       |                                pmu
> 
> 
> I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd.  Always at least test-build
> your changes...

Hm, no, I don't know what the correct fix is here.  I'll wait for a
fixed up (and tested) patch to be resubmited please.

thanks,

greg k-h

Kyle Huey May 10, 2022, 1:11 p.m. UTC | #5

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Greg KH <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:37:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > >
> > > > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > > >
> > > > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > > > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > > > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > > > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > > >
> > > > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > > > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > > > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > > >
> > > > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> > > >           [7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > >   };
> > > > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > > > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > + [0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > > > + [1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > + [2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > > > + [3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > > > + [4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > + [5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > > > + [6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > > > + [7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > > > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > > > +      ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > > > +
> > > >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> > > >   {
> > > >           struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > > > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> > > >                                       u8 event_select,
> > > >                                       u8 unit_mask)
> > > >   {
> > > > + struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> > > >           int i;
> > > > + if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > > +         event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > > > + else
> > > > +         event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > > > +
> > > >           for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > > > -         if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > -             && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > +         if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > +             && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > >                           break;
> > > >           if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> > > >                   return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > > > - return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > + return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > >   }
> > > >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paolo
> > >
> >
> > Wait, how was this tested?
> >
> > It breaks the build:
> >
> > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’:
> > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’?
> >   152 |         if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> >       |                                ^~~
> >       |                                pmu
> >
> >
> > I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd.  Always at least test-build
> > your changes...
>
> Hm, no, I don't know what the correct fix is here.  I'll wait for a
> fixed up (and tested) patch to be resubmited please.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Sorry, I tested an earlier version without the guest_cpuid_family fix
that Paolo made when he committed my patch, and of course that's the
hang up here. I'll get this fixed up for you.

- Kyle

Kyle Huey May 10, 2022, 4:01 p.m. UTC | #6

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:11 AM Kyle Huey <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Greg KH <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:37:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > > > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > >
> > > > > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > > > >
> > > > > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > > > > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > > > > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > > > > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > > > > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > > > > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > > > >
> > > > > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > > > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > >           [7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > >   };
> > > > > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > > > > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > > + [0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > > > > + [1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > > + [2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > > > > + [3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > > > > + [4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > > + [5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > > > > + [6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > > > > + [7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > > > > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > > > > +      ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > > > > +
> > > > >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> > > > >   {
> > > > >           struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > > > > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> > > > >                                       u8 event_select,
> > > > >                                       u8 unit_mask)
> > > > >   {
> > > > > + struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> > > > >           int i;
> > > > > + if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > > > +         event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > > > > + else
> > > > > +         event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > > > > +
> > > > >           for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > > > > -         if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > > -             && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > > +         if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > > +             && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > >                           break;
> > > > >           if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> > > > >                   return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > > > > - return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > > + return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > >   }
> > > > >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wait, how was this tested?
> > >
> > > It breaks the build:
> > >
> > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’:
> > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’?
> > >   152 |         if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > >       |                                ^~~
> > >       |                                pmu
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd.  Always at least test-build
> > > your changes...
> >
> > Hm, no, I don't know what the correct fix is here.  I'll wait for a
> > fixed up (and tested) patch to be resubmited please.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Sorry, I tested an earlier version without the guest_cpuid_family fix
> that Paolo made when he committed my patch, and of course that's the
> hang up here. I'll get this fixed up for you.
>
> - Kyle

Hi Greg,

I've just sent a backport of Like Xu's "KVM: x86/pmu: Refactoring
find_arch_event() to pmc_perf_hw_id()" for 5.4. It had to be trivially
adjusted because kvm_x86_ops is a pointer on pre-5.7 kernels.

After you apply that, the patch that you applied here for 5.10 will
apply to 5.4.

I have built and run these exact patches this time, and rr in KVM
guests on AMD hardware is behaving as expected.

Thanks, and sorry for the earlier trouble.

- Kyle

Greg Kroah-Hartman May 12, 2022, 1:48 p.m. UTC | #7

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 09:01:32AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:11 AM Kyle Huey <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Greg KH <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:37:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > > > > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > > > > > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > > > > > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > > > > > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > > > > > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > > > > > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > > > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > > >           [7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > > >   };
> > > > > > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > > > > > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > > > + [0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > > > > > + [1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > > > + [2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > > > > > + [3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > > > > > + [4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > > > + [5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > > > > > + [6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > > > > > + [7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > > > > > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > > > > > +      ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> > > > > >   {
> > > > > >           struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > > > > > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> > > > > >                                       u8 event_select,
> > > > > >                                       u8 unit_mask)
> > > > > >   {
> > > > > > + struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> > > > > >           int i;
> > > > > > + if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > > > > +         event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > > > > > + else
> > > > > > +         event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >           for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > > > > > -         if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > > > -             && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > > > +         if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > > > +             && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > > >                           break;
> > > > > >           if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> > > > > >                   return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > > > > > - return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > > > + return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > > >   }
> > > > > >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Paolo
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wait, how was this tested?
> > > >
> > > > It breaks the build:
> > > >
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’:
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’?
> > > >   152 |         if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > >       |                                ^~~
> > > >       |                                pmu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd.  Always at least test-build
> > > > your changes...
> > >
> > > Hm, no, I don't know what the correct fix is here.  I'll wait for a
> > > fixed up (and tested) patch to be resubmited please.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > Sorry, I tested an earlier version without the guest_cpuid_family fix
> > that Paolo made when he committed my patch, and of course that's the
> > hang up here. I'll get this fixed up for you.
> >
> > - Kyle
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I've just sent a backport of Like Xu's "KVM: x86/pmu: Refactoring
> find_arch_event() to pmc_perf_hw_id()" for 5.4. It had to be trivially
> adjusted because kvm_x86_ops is a pointer on pre-5.7 kernels.
> 
> After you apply that, the patch that you applied here for 5.10 will
> apply to 5.4.

I do not know what I "applied here" at all, sorry.  Please realize we
deal with hundreds of stable patches a week.

Please send me a patch series of what I needs to be applied and I will
be glad to queue them up.

thanks,

greg k-h

Kyle Huey May 12, 2022, 2:40 p.m. UTC | #8

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 6:48 AM Greg KH <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 09:01:32AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:11 AM Kyle Huey <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Greg KH <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:37:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:41:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/8/22 18:54, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit 5eb849322d7f7ae9d5c587c7bc3b4f7c6872cd2f upstream
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Zen renumbered some of the performance counters that correspond to the
> > > > > > > well known events in perf_hw_id. This code in KVM was never updated for
> > > > > > > that, so guest that attempt to use counters on Zen that correspond to the
> > > > > > > pre-Zen perf_hw_id values will silently receive the wrong values.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This has been observed in the wild with rr[0] when running in Zen 3
> > > > > > > guests. rr uses the retired conditional branch counter 00d1 which is
> > > > > > > incorrectly recognized by KVM as PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [0] https://rr-project.org/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > > > > [Check guest family, not host. - Paolo]
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > [Backport to 5.4: adjusted context]
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >   arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > >   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > > > index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
> > > > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > > > >           [7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > > > >   };
> > > > > > > +/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
> > > > > > > +static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
> > > > > > > + [0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
> > > > > > > + [1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > > > > + [2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
> > > > > > > + [3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
> > > > > > > + [4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
> > > > > > > + [5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
> > > > > > > + [6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
> > > > > > > + [7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
> > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
> > > > > > > +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
> > > > > > > +      ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >   static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
> > > > > > >   {
> > > > > > >           struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
> > > > > > > @@ -130,17 +146,23 @@ static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> > > > > > >                                       u8 event_select,
> > > > > > >                                       u8 unit_mask)
> > > > > > >   {
> > > > > > > + struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
> > > > > > >           int i;
> > > > > > > + if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > > > > > +         event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
> > > > > > > + else
> > > > > > > +         event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >           for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
> > > > > > > -         if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > > > > -             && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > > > > +         if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
> > > > > > > +             && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
> > > > > > >                           break;
> > > > > > >           if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
> > > > > > >                   return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
> > > > > > > - return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > > > > + return event_mapping[i].event_type;
> > > > > > >   }
> > > > > > >   /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paolo
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wait, how was this tested?
> > > > >
> > > > > It breaks the build:
> > > > >
> > > > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c: In function ‘amd_find_arch_event’:
> > > > > arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c:152:32: error: ‘pmc’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pmu’?
> > > > >   152 |         if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
> > > > >       |                                ^~~
> > > > >       |                                pmu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll do the obvious fixup, but this is odd.  Always at least test-build
> > > > > your changes...
> > > >
> > > > Hm, no, I don't know what the correct fix is here.  I'll wait for a
> > > > fixed up (and tested) patch to be resubmited please.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > >
> > > Sorry, I tested an earlier version without the guest_cpuid_family fix
> > > that Paolo made when he committed my patch, and of course that's the
> > > hang up here. I'll get this fixed up for you.
> > >
> > > - Kyle
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I've just sent a backport of Like Xu's "KVM: x86/pmu: Refactoring
> > find_arch_event() to pmc_perf_hw_id()" for 5.4. It had to be trivially
> > adjusted because kvm_x86_ops is a pointer on pre-5.7 kernels.
> >
> > After you apply that, the patch that you applied here for 5.10 will
> > apply to 5.4.
>
> I do not know what I "applied here" at all, sorry.  Please realize we
> deal with hundreds of stable patches a week.
>
> Please send me a patch series of what I needs to be applied and I will
> be glad to queue them up.

Alright, I sent you the one remaining patch for 5.4 in a separate thread.

- Kyle

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
index 6bc656abbe66..3ccfd1abcbad 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c
@@ -44,6 +44,22 @@  static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_event_mapping[] = {
 	[7] = { 0xd1, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
 };
 
+/* duplicated from amd_f17h_perfmon_event_map. */
+static struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping amd_f17h_event_mapping[] = {
+	[0] = { 0x76, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES },
+	[1] = { 0xc0, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS },
+	[2] = { 0x60, 0xff, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES },
+	[3] = { 0x64, 0x09, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES },
+	[4] = { 0xc2, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS },
+	[5] = { 0xc3, 0x00, PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES },
+	[6] = { 0x87, 0x02, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND },
+	[7] = { 0x87, 0x01, PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND },
+};
+
+/* amd_pmc_perf_hw_id depends on these being the same size */
+static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping) ==
+	     ARRAY_SIZE(amd_f17h_event_mapping));
+
 static unsigned int get_msr_base(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, enum pmu_type type)
 {
 	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = pmu_to_vcpu(pmu);
@@ -130,17 +146,23 @@  static unsigned amd_find_arch_event(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
 				    u8 event_select,
 				    u8 unit_mask)
 {
+	struct kvm_event_hw_type_mapping *event_mapping;
 	int i;
 
+	if (guest_cpuid_family(pmc->vcpu) >= 0x17)
+		event_mapping = amd_f17h_event_mapping;
+	else
+		event_mapping = amd_event_mapping;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping); i++)
-		if (amd_event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
-		    && amd_event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
+		if (event_mapping[i].eventsel == event_select
+		    && event_mapping[i].unit_mask == unit_mask)
 			break;
 
 	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(amd_event_mapping))
 		return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX;
 
-	return amd_event_mapping[i].event_type;
+	return event_mapping[i].event_type;
 }
 
 /* return PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX as AMD doesn't have fixed events */