lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kvm/x86: Reduce counter period change overhead and delay the effective time
From
Date
On 2020/3/17 15:53, 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..4e689273eb05 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)) {

Oops, the "{" is a shameful mistake.

> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, pmc->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, pmc->vcpu);
> return 0;
> } else if ((pmc = get_gp_pmc(pmu, msr, MSR_P6_EVNTSEL0))) {
> if (data == pmc->eventsel)
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-17 09:00    [W:0.085 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site