Message ID | 20230817003029.3073210-11-rananta@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | KVM: arm64: PMU: Allow userspace to limit the number of PMCs on vCPU | expand |
Hi Raghu, On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:30:27AM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > From: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> > > Introduce vpmu_counter_access test for arm64 platforms. > The test configures PMUv3 for a vCPU, sets PMCR_EL0.N for the vCPU, > and check if the guest can consistently see the same number of the > PMU event counters (PMCR_EL0.N) that userspace sets. > This test case is done with each of the PMCR_EL0.N values from > 0 to 31 (With the PMCR_EL0.N values greater than the host value, > the test expects KVM_SET_ONE_REG for the PMCR_EL0 to fail). > > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 + > .../kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c | 235 ++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 236 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > index c692cc86e7da8..a1599e2b82e38 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/smccc_filter > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vcpu_width_config > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_init > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_irq > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vpmu_counter_access > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += access_tracking_perf_test > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..d0afec07948ef > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c > @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > +/* > + * vpmu_counter_access - Test vPMU event counter access > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2022 Google LLC. > + * > + * This test checks if the guest can see the same number of the PMU event > + * counters (PMCR_EL0.N) that userspace sets. > + * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 is supported on the host. > + */ > +#include <kvm_util.h> > +#include <processor.h> > +#include <test_util.h> > +#include <vgic.h> > +#include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h> > + > +/* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */ > +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) > + > +struct vpmu_vm { > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > + int gic_fd; > +}; > + nit: this test is single threaded, so there will only ever be a single instance of a VM at a time. Dynamically allocating a backing structure doesn't add any value, IMO. You can just get away with using globals. > +/* > + * Create a guest with one vCPU, and attempt to set the PMCR_EL0.N for > + * the vCPU to @pmcr_n, which is larger than the host value. > + * The attempt should fail as @pmcr_n is too big to set for the vCPU. > + */ > +static void run_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) > +{ > + struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > + int ret; > + uint64_t pmcr, pmcr_orig; > + > + pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n); > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > + vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; > + > + /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ > + vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr_orig); > + pmcr = pmcr_orig & ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N; > + pmcr |= (pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT); > + > + /* This should fail as @pmcr_n is too big to set for the vCPU */ > + ret = __vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), pmcr); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret, "Setting PMCR to 0x%lx (orig PMCR 0x%lx) didn't fail", > + pmcr, pmcr_orig); The failure pattern for this should now be the write to PMCR_EL0.N had no effect.
Hi Oliver, On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:00 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote: > > Hi Raghu, > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:30:27AM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > From: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> > > > > Introduce vpmu_counter_access test for arm64 platforms. > > The test configures PMUv3 for a vCPU, sets PMCR_EL0.N for the vCPU, > > and check if the guest can consistently see the same number of the > > PMU event counters (PMCR_EL0.N) that userspace sets. > > This test case is done with each of the PMCR_EL0.N values from > > 0 to 31 (With the PMCR_EL0.N values greater than the host value, > > the test expects KVM_SET_ONE_REG for the PMCR_EL0 to fail). > > > > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 + > > .../kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c | 235 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 236 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > > index c692cc86e7da8..a1599e2b82e38 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > > @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/smccc_filter > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vcpu_width_config > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_init > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_irq > > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vpmu_counter_access > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += access_tracking_perf_test > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..d0afec07948ef > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > +/* > > + * vpmu_counter_access - Test vPMU event counter access > > + * > > + * Copyright (c) 2022 Google LLC. > > + * > > + * This test checks if the guest can see the same number of the PMU event > > + * counters (PMCR_EL0.N) that userspace sets. > > + * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 is supported on the host. > > + */ > > +#include <kvm_util.h> > > +#include <processor.h> > > +#include <test_util.h> > > +#include <vgic.h> > > +#include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h> > > +#include <linux/bitfield.h> > > + > > +/* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */ > > +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) > > + > > +struct vpmu_vm { > > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > > + int gic_fd; > > +}; > > + > > nit: this test is single threaded, so there will only ever be a single > instance of a VM at a time. Dynamically allocating a backing structure > doesn't add any value, IMO. > > You can just get away with using globals. > Probably. I can try to have a single global. > > +/* > > + * Create a guest with one vCPU, and attempt to set the PMCR_EL0.N for > > + * the vCPU to @pmcr_n, which is larger than the host value. > > + * The attempt should fail as @pmcr_n is too big to set for the vCPU. > > + */ > > +static void run_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) > > +{ > > + struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; > > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > > + int ret; > > + uint64_t pmcr, pmcr_orig; > > + > > + pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n); > > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); > > + vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; > > + > > + /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ > > + vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr_orig); > > + pmcr = pmcr_orig & ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N; > > + pmcr |= (pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT); > > + > > + /* This should fail as @pmcr_n is too big to set for the vCPU */ > > + ret = __vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), pmcr); > > + TEST_ASSERT(ret, "Setting PMCR to 0x%lx (orig PMCR 0x%lx) didn't fail", > > + pmcr, pmcr_orig); > > The failure pattern for this should now be the write to PMCR_EL0.N had > no effect. > Right. I'll make the change. Thank you. Raghavendra > -- > Thanks, > Oliver
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile index c692cc86e7da8..a1599e2b82e38 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/smccc_filter TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vcpu_width_config TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_init TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_irq +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vpmu_counter_access TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += access_tracking_perf_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..d0afec07948ef --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/* + * vpmu_counter_access - Test vPMU event counter access + * + * Copyright (c) 2022 Google LLC. + * + * This test checks if the guest can see the same number of the PMU event + * counters (PMCR_EL0.N) that userspace sets. + * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3 is supported on the host. + */ +#include <kvm_util.h> +#include <processor.h> +#include <test_util.h> +#include <vgic.h> +#include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h> +#include <linux/bitfield.h> + +/* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */ +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1) + +struct vpmu_vm { + struct kvm_vm *vm; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; + int gic_fd; +}; + +static void guest_sync_handler(struct ex_regs *regs) +{ + uint64_t esr, ec; + + esr = read_sysreg(esr_el1); + ec = (esr >> ESR_EC_SHIFT) & ESR_EC_MASK; + GUEST_ASSERT_3(0, regs->pc, esr, ec); +} + +/* + * The guest is configured with PMUv3 with @expected_pmcr_n number of + * event counters. + * Check if @expected_pmcr_n is consistent with PMCR_EL0.N. + */ +static void guest_code(uint64_t expected_pmcr_n) +{ + uint64_t pmcr, pmcr_n; + + GUEST_ASSERT(expected_pmcr_n <= ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS); + + pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0); + pmcr_n = FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, pmcr); + + /* Make sure that PMCR_EL0.N indicates the value userspace set */ + GUEST_ASSERT_2(pmcr_n == expected_pmcr_n, pmcr_n, expected_pmcr_n); + + GUEST_DONE(); +} + +#define GICD_BASE_GPA 0x8000000ULL +#define GICR_BASE_GPA 0x80A0000ULL + +/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */ +static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code) +{ + struct kvm_vcpu_init init; + uint8_t pmuver, ec; + uint64_t dfr0, irq = 23; + struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; + struct kvm_device_attr irq_attr = { + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_IRQ, + .addr = (uint64_t)&irq, + }; + struct kvm_device_attr init_attr = { + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL, + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT, + }; + + vpmu_vm = calloc(1, sizeof(*vpmu_vm)); + TEST_ASSERT(vpmu_vm, "Failed to allocate vpmu_vm"); + + vpmu_vm->vm = vm_create(1); + vm_init_descriptor_tables(vpmu_vm->vm); + for (ec = 0; ec < ESR_EC_NUM; ec++) { + vm_install_sync_handler(vpmu_vm->vm, VECTOR_SYNC_CURRENT, ec, + guest_sync_handler); + } + + /* Create vCPU with PMUv3 */ + vm_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init); + init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3); + vpmu_vm->vcpu = aarch64_vcpu_add(vpmu_vm->vm, 0, &init, guest_code); + vcpu_init_descriptor_tables(vpmu_vm->vcpu); + vpmu_vm->gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm->vm, 1, 64, + GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA); + + /* Make sure that PMUv3 support is indicated in the ID register */ + vcpu_get_reg(vpmu_vm->vcpu, + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1), &dfr0); + pmuver = FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER), dfr0); + TEST_ASSERT(pmuver != ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_IMP_DEF && + pmuver >= ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_8_0, + "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver); + + /* Initialize vPMU */ + vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr); + vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr); + + return vpmu_vm; +} + +static void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm) +{ + close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd); + kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm->vm); + free(vpmu_vm); +} + +static void run_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t pmcr_n) +{ + struct ucall uc; + + vcpu_args_set(vcpu, 1, pmcr_n); + vcpu_run(vcpu); + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { + case UCALL_ABORT: + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT_2(uc, "values:%#lx %#lx"); + break; + case UCALL_DONE: + break; + default: + TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd); + break; + } +} + +/* + * Create a guest with one vCPU, set the PMCR_EL0.N for the vCPU to @pmcr_n, + * and run the test. + */ +static void run_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) +{ + struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; + uint64_t sp, pmcr, pmcr_orig; + struct kvm_vcpu_init init; + + pr_debug("Test with pmcr_n %lu\n", pmcr_n); + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); + + vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; + + /* Save the initial sp to restore them later to run the guest again */ + vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, ARM64_CORE_REG(sp_el1), &sp); + + /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ + vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr_orig); + pmcr = pmcr_orig & ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N; + pmcr |= (pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT); + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), pmcr); + + run_vcpu(vcpu, pmcr_n); + + /* + * Reset and re-initialize the vCPU, and run the guest code again to + * check if PMCR_EL0.N is preserved. + */ + vm_ioctl(vpmu_vm->vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init); + init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3); + aarch64_vcpu_setup(vcpu, &init); + vcpu_init_descriptor_tables(vcpu); + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, ARM64_CORE_REG(sp_el1), sp); + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), (uint64_t)guest_code); + + run_vcpu(vcpu, pmcr_n); + + destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); +} + +/* + * Create a guest with one vCPU, and attempt to set the PMCR_EL0.N for + * the vCPU to @pmcr_n, which is larger than the host value. + * The attempt should fail as @pmcr_n is too big to set for the vCPU. + */ +static void run_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) +{ + struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; + int ret; + uint64_t pmcr, pmcr_orig; + + pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n); + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); + vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu; + + /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */ + vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr_orig); + pmcr = pmcr_orig & ~ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N; + pmcr |= (pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT); + + /* This should fail as @pmcr_n is too big to set for the vCPU */ + ret = __vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), pmcr); + TEST_ASSERT(ret, "Setting PMCR to 0x%lx (orig PMCR 0x%lx) didn't fail", + pmcr, pmcr_orig); + + destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm); +} + +/* + * Return the default number of implemented PMU event counters excluding + * the cycle counter (i.e. PMCR_EL0.N value) for the guest. + */ +static uint64_t get_pmcr_n_limit(void) +{ + struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm; + uint64_t pmcr; + + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code); + 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); +} + +int main(void) +{ + uint64_t i, pmcr_n; + + TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3)); + + pmcr_n = get_pmcr_n_limit(); + for (i = 0; i <= pmcr_n; i++) + run_test(i); + + for (i = pmcr_n + 1; i < ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS; i++) + run_error_test(i); + + return 0; +}