On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Wei Huang wrote:
> This patch adds a pmu=[on/off] option to enable/disable host vPMU
> support in guest VM. There are several reasons to justify this option.
> First, host-backed vPMU can be problematic for cross-migration between
> different SoC as perf counters are architecture-dependent. It is more
> flexible to have an option to turn it on/off. Secondly this option
> matches the "pmu" option as supported in libvirt tool.
>
> Note that, like "has_el3", the "pmu" option is only made available on
> CPUs that support host-backed vPMU. They include:
> * cortex-a53 + kvm
> * cortex-a57 + kvm
> * host + kvm
> This option is removed in other configs where it doesn't make sense
> (e.g. cortex-a57 + TCG); and the default pmu support is off. This patch
Some of the PMU registers are already emulated with TCG. While it
doesn't make much sense to use perf counters in a TCG guest for
measuring anything, it may have merit for emulation completeness
and debug. With that in mind, then I think we need to add the PMU
feature to all processors that support it, and thus the 'has_pmu'
name is better. As the feature is optional, I agree it does make
sense that it's off by default, and only available with the pmu=on
property.
I think there are more processors than just A53 and A57.
> has been tested under both DT/ACPI modes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <w...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 2 +-
> hw/arm/virt.c | 2 +-
> target-arm/cpu.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> target-arm/cpu.h | 3 ++-
> target-arm/cpu64.c | 6 ++++++
> target-arm/kvm64.c | 10 +++++-----
> 6 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> index 28fc59c..22fb9d9 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> @@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ build_madt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> VirtGuestInfo *guest_info)
> gicc->uid = i;
> gicc->flags = cpu_to_le32(ACPI_GICC_ENABLED);
>
> - if (armcpu->has_pmu) {
> + if (armcpu->has_host_pmu) {
> gicc->performance_interrupt = cpu_to_le32(PPI(VIRTUAL_PMU_IRQ));
> }
> }
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> index a193b5a..4975f38 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ static void fdt_add_pmu_nodes(const VirtBoardInfo *vbi,
> int gictype)
>
> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
> armcpu = ARM_CPU(cpu);
> - if (!armcpu->has_pmu ||
> + if (!armcpu->has_host_pmu ||
> !kvm_arm_pmu_create(cpu, PPI(VIRTUAL_PMU_IRQ))) {
> return;
> }
> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.c b/target-arm/cpu.c
> index ce8b8f4..a527128 100644
> --- a/target-arm/cpu.c
> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.c
> @@ -509,6 +509,10 @@ static Property arm_cpu_rvbar_property =
> static Property arm_cpu_has_el3_property =
> DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("has_el3", ARMCPU, has_el3, true);
>
> +/* use property name "pmu" to match with other archs and libvirt */
> +static Property arm_cpu_has_host_pmu_property =
> + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("pmu", ARMCPU, has_host_pmu, false);
> +
> static Property arm_cpu_has_mpu_property =
> DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("has-mpu", ARMCPU, has_mpu, true);
>
> @@ -552,6 +556,11 @@ static void arm_cpu_post_init(Object *obj)
> #endif
> }
>
> + if (arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU)) {
> + qdev_property_add_static(DEVICE(obj), &arm_cpu_has_host_pmu_property,
> + &error_abort);
> + }
> +
> if (arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_MPU)) {
> qdev_property_add_static(DEVICE(obj), &arm_cpu_has_mpu_property,
> &error_abort);
> @@ -648,6 +657,10 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error
> **errp)
> cpu->id_aa64pfr0 &= ~0xf000;
> }
>
> + if (!cpu->has_host_pmu) {
> + unset_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
> + }
I think this is the right approach. But we should add the feature to all
processors that can have it, and then, after checking the property's
value, we remove it when it's not desired.
> +
> if (!arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_EL2)) {
> /* Disable the hypervisor feature bits in the processor feature
> * registers if we don't have EL2. These are id_pfr1[15:12] and
> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
> index 76d824d..f3f6d3f 100644
> --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
> @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ struct ARMCPU {
> /* CPU has security extension */
> bool has_el3;
> /* CPU has PMU (Performance Monitor Unit) */
> - bool has_pmu;
> + bool has_host_pmu;
>
> /* CPU has memory protection unit */
> bool has_mpu;
> @@ -1129,6 +1129,7 @@ enum arm_features {
> ARM_FEATURE_V8_SHA256, /* implements SHA256 part of v8 Crypto Extensions
> */
> ARM_FEATURE_V8_PMULL, /* implements PMULL part of v8 Crypto Extensions */
> ARM_FEATURE_THUMB_DSP, /* DSP insns supported in the Thumb encodings */
> + ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU, /* PMU supported by host */
> };
>
> static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature)
> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu64.c b/target-arm/cpu64.c
> index 1635deb..19e8127 100644
> --- a/target-arm/cpu64.c
> +++ b/target-arm/cpu64.c
> @@ -111,6 +111,9 @@ static void aarch64_a57_initfn(Object *obj)
> set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8_PMULL);
> set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_CRC);
> set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3);
> + if (kvm_enabled()) {
> + set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
> + }
We shouldn't need the if (kvm_enabled()) here.
> cpu->kvm_target = QEMU_KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A57;
> cpu->midr = 0x411fd070;
> cpu->revidr = 0x00000000;
> @@ -166,6 +169,9 @@ static void aarch64_a53_initfn(Object *obj)
> set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_V8_PMULL);
> set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_CRC);
> set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3);
> + if (kvm_enabled()) {
> + set_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
> + }
Or here.
> cpu->kvm_target = QEMU_KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A53;
> cpu->midr = 0x410fd034;
> cpu->revidr = 0x00000000;
> diff --git a/target-arm/kvm64.c b/target-arm/kvm64.c
> index 5faa76c..588e5e3 100644
> --- a/target-arm/kvm64.c
> +++ b/target-arm/kvm64.c
> @@ -469,6 +469,7 @@ bool kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features(ARMHostCPUClass *ahcc)
> set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_VFP4);
> set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_NEON);
> set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64);
> + set_feature(&features, ARM_FEATURE_HOST_PMU);
>
> ahcc->features = features;
>
> @@ -501,11 +502,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *cs)
> if (!arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64)) {
> cpu->kvm_init_features[0] |= 1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT;
> }
> - if (kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() &&
> - kvm_check_extension(cs->kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3)) {
> - cpu->has_pmu = true;
> - cpu->kvm_init_features[0] |= 1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3;
> - }
> + /* enable vPMU based on KVM mode, hw capability, and user setting */
> + cpu->has_host_pmu &= kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() &&
> + kvm_check_extension(cs->kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3);
> + cpu->kvm_init_features[0] |= cpu->has_host_pmu << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3;
Hmm... so now if the user doesn't specify pmu=on (off by default) then we
silently disable it (I think that's a 2.6 compat issue), and if they do
specify pmu=on, but KVM doesn't support it, then it's silently disabled,
which isn't nice. I think QEMU should error out in that case, explaining
that the user specified incompatible options, i.e. they selected accel=kvm
and pmu=on, but their KVM version (or cpu model) doesn't support PMU
emulation.
>
> /* Do KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT ioctl */
> ret = kvm_arm_vcpu_init(cs);
> --
> 2.4.11
>
>
Thanks,
drew
