| Message ID | 20200317081458.88714-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] KVM: x86/pmu: Reduce counter period change overhead and delay the effective time | expand |
Anyone to help review this change? Thanks, Like Xu On 2020/3/17 16:14, Like Xu wrote: > The cost of perf_event_period() is unstable, and when the guest samples > multiple events, the overhead increases dramatically (5378 ns on E5-2699). > > For a non-running counter, the effective time of the new period is when > its corresponding enable bit is enabled. Calling perf_event_period() > in advance is superfluous. For a running counter, it's safe to delay the > effective time until the KVM_REQ_PMU event is handled. If there are > multiple perf_event_period() calls before handling KVM_REQ_PMU, > it helps to reduce the total cost. > > Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 11 ----------- > arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h | 11 +++++++++++ > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 10 ++++------ > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c > index d1f8ca57d354..527a8bb85080 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c > @@ -437,17 +437,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu); > } > > -static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) > -{ > - struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); > - > - if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) > - return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, > - pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; > - > - return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; > -} > - > /* Release perf_events for vPMCs that have been unused for a full time slice. */ > void kvm_pmu_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h > index d7da2b9e0755..cd112e825d2c 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h > @@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ static inline u64 get_sample_period(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 counter_value) > return sample_period; > } > > +static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) > +{ > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); > + > + if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) > + return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, > + pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; > + > + return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; > +} > + > void reprogram_gp_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 eventsel); > void reprogram_fixed_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u8 ctrl, int fixed_idx); > void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx); > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c > index 7c857737b438..20f654a0c09b 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c > @@ -263,15 +263,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info) > if (!msr_info->host_initiated) > data = (s64)(s32)data; > pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); > - if (pmc->perf_event) > - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, > - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); > + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) > + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); > return 0; > } else if ((pmc = get_fixed_pmc(pmu, msr))) { > pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); > - if (pmc->perf_event) > - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, > - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); > + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) > + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); > return 0; > } else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) { > if (data == pmc->eventsel) >
Hi Paolo, Could you please take a look at this patch? If there is anything needs to be improved, please let me know. Thanks, Like Xu On 2020/3/26 20:47, Like Xu wrote: > Anyone to help review this change? > > Thanks, > Like Xu > > On 2020/3/17 16:14, Like Xu wrote: >> The cost of perf_event_period() is unstable, and when the guest samples >> multiple events, the overhead increases dramatically (5378 ns on E5-2699). >> >> For a non-running counter, the effective time of the new period is when >> its corresponding enable bit is enabled. Calling perf_event_period() >> in advance is superfluous. For a running counter, it's safe to delay the >> effective time until the KVM_REQ_PMU event is handled. If there are >> multiple perf_event_period() calls before handling KVM_REQ_PMU, >> it helps to reduce the total cost. >> >> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 11 ----------- >> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h | 11 +++++++++++ >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 10 ++++------ >> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c >> index d1f8ca57d354..527a8bb85080 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c >> @@ -437,17 +437,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu); >> } >> -static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) >> -{ >> - struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); >> - >> - if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) >> - return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, >> - pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; >> - >> - return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; >> -} >> - >> /* Release perf_events for vPMCs that have been unused for a full time >> slice. */ >> void kvm_pmu_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> { >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h >> index d7da2b9e0755..cd112e825d2c 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h >> @@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ static inline u64 get_sample_period(struct kvm_pmc >> *pmc, u64 counter_value) >> return sample_period; >> } >> +static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) >> +{ >> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); >> + >> + if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) >> + return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, >> + pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; >> + >> + return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; >> +} >> + >> void reprogram_gp_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 eventsel); >> void reprogram_fixed_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u8 ctrl, int fixed_idx); >> void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx); >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c >> index 7c857737b438..20f654a0c09b 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c >> @@ -263,15 +263,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> struct msr_data *msr_info) >> if (!msr_info->host_initiated) >> data = (s64)(s32)data; >> pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); >> - if (pmc->perf_event) >> - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, >> - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); >> + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) >> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); >> return 0; >> } else if ((pmc = get_fixed_pmc(pmu, msr))) { >> pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); >> - if (pmc->perf_event) >> - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, >> - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); >> + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) >> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); >> return 0; >> } else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) { >> if (data == pmc->eventsel) >> >
Ping. On 2020/4/8 22:04, Like Xu wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > Could you please take a look at this patch? > If there is anything needs to be improved, please let me know. > > Thanks, > Like Xu > > On 2020/3/26 20:47, Like Xu wrote: >> Anyone to help review this change? >> >> Thanks, >> Like Xu >> >> On 2020/3/17 16:14, Like Xu wrote: >>> The cost of perf_event_period() is unstable, and when the guest samples >>> multiple events, the overhead increases dramatically (5378 ns on E5-2699). >>> >>> For a non-running counter, the effective time of the new period is when >>> its corresponding enable bit is enabled. Calling perf_event_period() >>> in advance is superfluous. For a running counter, it's safe to delay the >>> effective time until the KVM_REQ_PMU event is handled. If there are >>> multiple perf_event_period() calls before handling KVM_REQ_PMU, >>> it helps to reduce the total cost. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 11 ----------- >>> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h | 11 +++++++++++ >>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 10 ++++------ >>> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c >>> index d1f8ca57d354..527a8bb85080 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c >>> @@ -437,17 +437,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>> kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu); >>> } >>> -static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) >>> -{ >>> - struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); >>> - >>> - if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) >>> - return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, >>> - pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; >>> - >>> - return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; >>> -} >>> - >>> /* Release perf_events for vPMCs that have been unused for a full >>> time slice. */ >>> void kvm_pmu_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>> { >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h >>> index d7da2b9e0755..cd112e825d2c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h >>> @@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ static inline u64 get_sample_period(struct kvm_pmc >>> *pmc, u64 counter_value) >>> return sample_period; >>> } >>> +static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) >>> +{ >>> + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); >>> + >>> + if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) >>> + return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, >>> + pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; >>> + >>> + return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; >>> +} >>> + >>> void reprogram_gp_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 eventsel); >>> void reprogram_fixed_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u8 ctrl, int >>> fixed_idx); >>> void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx); >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c >>> index 7c857737b438..20f654a0c09b 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c >>> @@ -263,15 +263,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu >>> *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info) >>> if (!msr_info->host_initiated) >>> data = (s64)(s32)data; >>> pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); >>> - if (pmc->perf_event) >>> - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, >>> - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); >>> + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) >>> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); >>> return 0; >>> } else if ((pmc = get_fixed_pmc(pmu, msr))) { >>> pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); >>> - if (pmc->perf_event) >>> - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, >>> - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); >>> + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) >>> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); >>> return 0; >>> } else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) { >>> if (data == pmc->eventsel) >>> >> >
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c index d1f8ca57d354..527a8bb85080 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c @@ -437,17 +437,6 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu); } -static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) -{ - struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); - - if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) - return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, - pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; - - return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; -} - /* Release perf_events for vPMCs that have been unused for a full time slice. */ void kvm_pmu_cleanup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h index d7da2b9e0755..cd112e825d2c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h @@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ static inline u64 get_sample_period(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 counter_value) return sample_period; } +static inline bool pmc_speculative_in_use(struct kvm_pmc *pmc) +{ + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc); + + if (pmc_is_fixed(pmc)) + return fixed_ctrl_field(pmu->fixed_ctr_ctrl, + pmc->idx - INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) & 0x3; + + return pmc->eventsel & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_ENABLE; +} + void reprogram_gp_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u64 eventsel); void reprogram_fixed_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u8 ctrl, int fixed_idx); void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx); diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c index 7c857737b438..20f654a0c09b 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c @@ -263,15 +263,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info) if (!msr_info->host_initiated) data = (s64)(s32)data; pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); - if (pmc->perf_event) - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); return 0; } else if ((pmc = get_fixed_pmc(pmu, msr))) { pmc->counter += data - pmc_read_counter(pmc); - if (pmc->perf_event) - perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, - get_sample_period(pmc, data)); + if (pmc_speculative_in_use(pmc)) + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu); return 0; } else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) { if (data == pmc->eventsel)
The cost of perf_event_period() is unstable, and when the guest samples multiple events, the overhead increases dramatically (5378 ns on E5-2699). For a non-running counter, the effective time of the new period is when its corresponding enable bit is enabled. Calling perf_event_period() in advance is superfluous. For a running counter, it's safe to delay the effective time until the KVM_REQ_PMU event is handled. If there are multiple perf_event_period() calls before handling KVM_REQ_PMU, it helps to reduce the total cost. Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com> --- arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 11 ----------- arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h | 11 +++++++++++ arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 10 ++++------ 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)