[PATCH v3 6/9] kvm: arm/arm64: Add host pmu to support VM introspection

[Punit Agrawal]

Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> writes:

> On 18/01/17 13:01, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:21:21AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/17 11:38, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>>>> +#define VM_MASK	GENMASK_ULL(31, 0)
>>>>> +#define EVENT_MASK	GENMASK_ULL(32, 39)
>>>>> +#define EVENT_SHIFT	(32)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define to_pid(cfg)	((cfg) & VM_MASK)
>>>>> +#define to_event(cfg)	(((cfg) & EVENT_MASK) >> EVENT_SHIFT)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(vm, "config:0-31");
>>>>> +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event, "config:32-39");
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit confused by these. Can't you get the PID of the VM you're
>>>> tracing directly from perf, without having to encode things?
>> 
>> With perf attached to a PID, the event gets scheduled out when the task
>> is context switched. As the PID of the controlling process was used,
>> none of the vCPU events were counted.
>> 
>>> And if you
>>>> can't, surely this should be a function of the size of pid_t?
>> 
>> Agreed. I'll update above if we decide to carry on with this
>> approach. More below...
>> 
>>>>
>>>> Mark, can you shine some light here?
>>>
>>> AFAICT, this is not necessary.
>>>
>>> The perf_event_open() syscall takes a PID separately from the
>>> perf_event_attr. i.e. we should be able to do:
>>>
>>> // monitor a particular vCPU
>>> perf_event_open(attr, vcpupid, -1, -1, 0)
>>>
>>> ... or .. 
>>>
>>> // monitor a particular vCPU on a pCPU
>>> perf_event_open(attr, vcpupid, cpu, -1, 0)
>>>
>>> ... or ...
>>>
>>> // monitor all vCPUs on a pCPU
>>> perf_event_open(attr, -1, cpu, -1, 0)
>>>
>>> ... so this shouldn't be necessary. AFAICT, this is a SW PMU, so there
>>> should be no issue with using the perf_sw_context.
>> 
>> I might have missed it but none of the modes of invoking perf_event_open
>> allow monitoring a set of process, i.e., all vcpus belonging to a
>> particular VM, which was one of the aims and a feature I was carrying
>> over from the previous version. If we do not care about this...
>> 
>>>
>>> If this is a bodge to avoid opening a perf_event per vCPU thread, then I
>>> completely disagree with the approach. This would be better handled in
>>> userspace by discovering the set of threads and opening events for
>>> each.
>> 
>> ... then requiring userspace to invoke perf_event_open perf vCPU will
>> simplify this patch.
>> 
>> Marc, any objections?
>
> Not so far, but I'm curious to find out how you determine which thread
> is a vcpu, let alone a given vcpu.

I should've clarified in my reply that I wasn't looking to support the
third instance from Mark's examples above - "monitor all vCPUs on a
pCPU". I think it'll be quite expensive to figure out which threads from
a given pool are vCPUs.

For the other instances, we only need to find the vCPU for a given
pid. Userspace will hand us a pid that needs to be checked against vCPUs
to establish that it is a valid vCPU pid (here I was looking to use
kvm_vcpu->pid and kvm->pid introduced in Patch 2).

This will happen when setting up the event and the vCPU can be cached
for later use.

>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.