| Message ID | 20230215010717.3612794-9-rananta@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for vPMU selftests | expand |
Hi Raghu, On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:07 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote: > > Accept a list of KVM PMU event filters as an argument while creating > a VM via create_vpmu_vm(). Upcoming patches would leverage this to > test the event filters' functionality. > > No functional change intended. > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > --- > .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c > index 15aebc7d7dc94..2b3a4fa3afa9c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c > @@ -15,10 +15,14 @@ > #include <vgic.h> > #include <asm/perf_event.h> > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > +#include <linux/bitmap.h> > > /* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */ > #define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) > > +/* The max number of event numbers that's supported */ > +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS 64 The name and the comment would be a bit misleading. (This sounds like a max number of events that are supported by ARMv8) Perhaps 'MAX_EVENT_FILTER_BITS' would be more clear ? > + > /* > * The macros and functions below for reading/writing PMEV{CNTR,TYPER}<n>_EL0 > * were basically copied from arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c. > @@ -224,6 +228,8 @@ struct pmc_accessor pmc_accessors[] = { > { read_sel_evcntr, write_pmevcntrn, read_sel_evtyper, write_pmevtypern }, > }; > > +#define MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM 10 (Looking at just this patch,) it appears 'PER_VM' in the name might be rather misleading ? > + > #define INVALID_EC (-1ul) > uint64_t expected_ec = INVALID_EC; > uint64_t op_end_addr; > @@ -232,6 +238,7 @@ struct vpmu_vm { > struct kvm_vm *vm; > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > int gic_fd; > + unsigned long *pmu_filter; > }; > > enum test_stage { > @@ -541,8 +548,51 @@ static void guest_code(void) > #define GICD_BASE_GPA 0x8000000ULL > #define GICR_BASE_GPA 0x80A0000ULL > > +static unsigned long * > +set_event_filters(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters) Can you add a comment that explains the function ? (especially for @pmu_event_filters and the return value ?) > +{ > + int j; > + unsigned long *pmu_filter; > + struct kvm_device_attr filter_attr = { > + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, > + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, > + }; > + > + /* > + * Setting up of the bitmap is similar to what KVM does. > + * If the first filter denys an event, default all the others to allow, and vice-versa. > + */ > + pmu_filter = bitmap_zalloc(ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS); > + TEST_ASSERT(pmu_filter, "Failed to allocate the pmu_filter"); > + > + if (pmu_event_filters[0].action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY) > + bitmap_fill(pmu_filter, ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS); > + > + for (j = 0; j < MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM; j++) { > + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filter = &pmu_event_filters[j]; > + > + if (!pmu_event_filter->nevents) What does this mean ? (the end of the valid entry in the array ?) > + break; > + > + pr_debug("Applying event filter:: event: 0x%x; action: %s\n", > + pmu_event_filter->base_event, > + pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW ? "ALLOW" : "DENY"); > + > + filter_attr.addr = (uint64_t) pmu_event_filter; > + vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &filter_attr); > + > + if (pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW) > + __set_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter); > + else > + __clear_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter); > + } > + > + return pmu_filter; > +} > + > /* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ > -static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) > +static struct vpmu_vm * > +create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters) > { > struct kvm_vm *vm; > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > @@ -586,6 +636,9 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) > "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver); > > /* Initialize vPMU */ > + if (pmu_event_filters) > + vpmu_vm->pmu_filter = set_event_filters(vcpu, pmu_event_filters); > + > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr); > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr); > > @@ -594,6 +647,8 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) > > static void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm) > { > + if (vpmu_vm->pmu_filter) > + bitmap_free(vpmu_vm->pmu_filter); > close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd); > kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm->vm); > free(vpmu_vm); > @@ -631,7 +686,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) > guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n; > > pr_debug("Test with pmcr_n %lu\n", pmcr_n); > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); > vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; > > /* Save the initial sp to restore them later to run the guest again */ > @@ -676,7 +731,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) > guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n; > > pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n); > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); > vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; > > /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ > @@ -719,9 +774,10 @@ static uint64_t get_pmcr_n_limit(void) > struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; > uint64_t pmcr; > > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); > vcpu_get_reg(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr); > destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); > + > return FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, pmcr); > } Thank you, Reiji > > -- > 2.39.1.581.gbfd45094c4-goog >
Hi Reiji, On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 8:31 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Raghu, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:07 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta > <rananta@google.com> wrote: > > > > Accept a list of KVM PMU event filters as an argument while creating > > a VM via create_vpmu_vm(). Upcoming patches would leverage this to > > test the event filters' functionality. > > > > No functional change intended. > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > > --- > > .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c > > index 15aebc7d7dc94..2b3a4fa3afa9c 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c > > @@ -15,10 +15,14 @@ > > #include <vgic.h> > > #include <asm/perf_event.h> > > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > > +#include <linux/bitmap.h> > > > > /* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */ > > #define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) > > > > +/* The max number of event numbers that's supported */ > > +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS 64 > > The name and the comment would be a bit misleading. > (This sounds like a max number of events that are supported by ARMv8) > > Perhaps 'MAX_EVENT_FILTER_BITS' would be more clear ? > > You are right. It should actually represent the event filter bits. Even the value is incorrect. It should be 16 and would change the loop iteration logic in guest_event_filter_test(). Thanks for catching this! > > + > > /* > > * The macros and functions below for reading/writing PMEV{CNTR,TYPER}<n>_EL0 > > * were basically copied from arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c. > > @@ -224,6 +228,8 @@ struct pmc_accessor pmc_accessors[] = { > > { read_sel_evcntr, write_pmevcntrn, read_sel_evtyper, write_pmevtypern }, > > }; > > > > +#define MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM 10 > > (Looking at just this patch,) it appears 'PER_VM' in the name > might be rather misleading ? > Probably it's not clear. It should represent the max number of event filter configurations that can be applied to a VM. Would a comment help? > > + > > #define INVALID_EC (-1ul) > > uint64_t expected_ec = INVALID_EC; > > uint64_t op_end_addr; > > @@ -232,6 +238,7 @@ struct vpmu_vm { > > struct kvm_vm *vm; > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > > int gic_fd; > > + unsigned long *pmu_filter; > > }; > > > > enum test_stage { > > @@ -541,8 +548,51 @@ static void guest_code(void) > > #define GICD_BASE_GPA 0x8000000ULL > > #define GICR_BASE_GPA 0x80A0000ULL > > > > +static unsigned long * > > +set_event_filters(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters) > > Can you add a comment that explains the function ? > (especially for @pmu_event_filters and the return value ?) > Yes, I'll add a comment > > +{ > > + int j; > > + unsigned long *pmu_filter; > > + struct kvm_device_attr filter_attr = { > > + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, > > + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, > > + }; > > + > > + /* > > + * Setting up of the bitmap is similar to what KVM does. > > + * If the first filter denys an event, default all the others to allow, and vice-versa. > > + */ > > + pmu_filter = bitmap_zalloc(ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS); > > + TEST_ASSERT(pmu_filter, "Failed to allocate the pmu_filter"); > > + > > + if (pmu_event_filters[0].action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY) > > + bitmap_fill(pmu_filter, ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS); > > + > > + for (j = 0; j < MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM; j++) { > > + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filter = &pmu_event_filters[j]; > > + > > + if (!pmu_event_filter->nevents) > > What does this mean ? (the end of the valid entry in the array ?) > Yes, it should represent the end of an array. I can add a comment if it's unclear. > > > + break; > > + > > + pr_debug("Applying event filter:: event: 0x%x; action: %s\n", > > + pmu_event_filter->base_event, > > + pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW ? "ALLOW" : "DENY"); > > + > > + filter_attr.addr = (uint64_t) pmu_event_filter; > > + vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &filter_attr); > > + > > + if (pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW) > > + __set_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter); > > + else > > + __clear_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter); > > + } > > + > > + return pmu_filter; > > +} > > + > > /* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ > > -static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) > > +static struct vpmu_vm * > > +create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters) > > { > > struct kvm_vm *vm; > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > > @@ -586,6 +636,9 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) > > "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver); > > > > /* Initialize vPMU */ > > + if (pmu_event_filters) > > + vpmu_vm->pmu_filter = set_event_filters(vcpu, pmu_event_filters); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr); > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr); > > > > @@ -594,6 +647,8 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) > > > > static void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm) > > { > > + if (vpmu_vm->pmu_filter) > > + bitmap_free(vpmu_vm->pmu_filter); > > close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd); > > kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm->vm); > > free(vpmu_vm); > > @@ -631,7 +686,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) > > guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n; > > > > pr_debug("Test with pmcr_n %lu\n", pmcr_n); > > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); > > vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; > > > > /* Save the initial sp to restore them later to run the guest again */ > > @@ -676,7 +731,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) > > guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n; > > > > pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n); > > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); > > vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; > > > > /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ > > @@ -719,9 +774,10 @@ static uint64_t get_pmcr_n_limit(void) > > struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; > > uint64_t pmcr; > > > > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); > > vcpu_get_reg(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr); > > destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); > > + > > return FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, pmcr); > > } > > Thank you, > Reiji > > > > > > -- > > 2.39.1.581.gbfd45094c4-goog > >
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c index 15aebc7d7dc94..2b3a4fa3afa9c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c @@ -15,10 +15,14 @@ #include <vgic.h> #include <asm/perf_event.h> #include <linux/bitfield.h> +#include <linux/bitmap.h> /* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */ #define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) +/* The max number of event numbers that's supported */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS 64 + /* * The macros and functions below for reading/writing PMEV{CNTR,TYPER}<n>_EL0 * were basically copied from arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c. @@ -224,6 +228,8 @@ struct pmc_accessor pmc_accessors[] = { { read_sel_evcntr, write_pmevcntrn, read_sel_evtyper, write_pmevtypern }, }; +#define MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM 10 + #define INVALID_EC (-1ul) uint64_t expected_ec = INVALID_EC; uint64_t op_end_addr; @@ -232,6 +238,7 @@ struct vpmu_vm { struct kvm_vm *vm; struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; int gic_fd; + unsigned long *pmu_filter; }; enum test_stage { @@ -541,8 +548,51 @@ static void guest_code(void) #define GICD_BASE_GPA 0x8000000ULL #define GICR_BASE_GPA 0x80A0000ULL +static unsigned long * +set_event_filters(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters) +{ + int j; + unsigned long *pmu_filter; + struct kvm_device_attr filter_attr = { + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, + }; + + /* + * Setting up of the bitmap is similar to what KVM does. + * If the first filter denys an event, default all the others to allow, and vice-versa. + */ + pmu_filter = bitmap_zalloc(ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS); + TEST_ASSERT(pmu_filter, "Failed to allocate the pmu_filter"); + + if (pmu_event_filters[0].action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY) + bitmap_fill(pmu_filter, ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS); + + for (j = 0; j < MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM; j++) { + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filter = &pmu_event_filters[j]; + + if (!pmu_event_filter->nevents) + break; + + pr_debug("Applying event filter:: event: 0x%x; action: %s\n", + pmu_event_filter->base_event, + pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW ? "ALLOW" : "DENY"); + + filter_attr.addr = (uint64_t) pmu_event_filter; + vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &filter_attr); + + if (pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW) + __set_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter); + else + __clear_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter); + } + + return pmu_filter; +} + /* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ -static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) +static struct vpmu_vm * +create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters) { struct kvm_vm *vm; struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; @@ -586,6 +636,9 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver); /* Initialize vPMU */ + if (pmu_event_filters) + vpmu_vm->pmu_filter = set_event_filters(vcpu, pmu_event_filters); + vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr); vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr); @@ -594,6 +647,8 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) static void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm) { + if (vpmu_vm->pmu_filter) + bitmap_free(vpmu_vm->pmu_filter); close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd); kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm->vm); free(vpmu_vm); @@ -631,7 +686,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n; pr_debug("Test with pmcr_n %lu\n", pmcr_n); - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; /* Save the initial sp to restore them later to run the guest again */ @@ -676,7 +731,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n; pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n); - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ @@ -719,9 +774,10 @@ static uint64_t get_pmcr_n_limit(void) struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; uint64_t pmcr; - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL); vcpu_get_reg(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr); destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); + return FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, pmcr); }
Accept a list of KVM PMU event filters as an argument while creating a VM via create_vpmu_vm(). Upcoming patches would leverage this to test the event filters' functionality. No functional change intended. Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> --- .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)