Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] x86: perf/core: use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE for exclude incapable PMUs

From: Andrew Murray
Date: Tue Jan 08 2019 - 08:12:51 EST


On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:48:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:27PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > For drivers that do not support context exclusion let's advertise the
> > PERF_PMU_CAP_NOEXCLUDE capability. This ensures that perf will
> > prevent us from handling events where any exclusion flags are set.
> > Let's also remove the now unnecessary check for exclusion flags.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/events/amd/ibs.c | 13 +------------
> > arch/x86/events/amd/power.c | 10 ++--------
> > arch/x86/events/intel/cstate.c | 12 +++---------
> > arch/x86/events/intel/rapl.c | 9 ++-------
> > arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c | 9 ++-------
> > arch/x86/events/msr.c | 10 ++--------
> > 6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> You (correctly) don't add CAP_NO_EXCLUDE to the main x86 pmu code, but
> then you also don't check if it handles all the various exclude options
> correctly/consistently.
>
> Now; I must admit that that is a bit of a maze, but I think we can at
> least add exclude_idle and exclude_hv fails in there, nothing uses those
> afaict.

Yes it took me some time to make sense of it.

As per my comments in the other patch, I think you're suggesting that I
add additional checks to x86. I think they are needed but I'd prefer to
make functional changes in a separate series, I'm happy to do this.

>
> On the various exclude options; they are as follows (IIUC):
>
> - exclude_guest: we're a HV/host-kernel and we don't want the counter
> to run when we run a guest context.
>
> - exclude_host: we're a HV/host-kernel and we don't want the counter
> to run when we run in host context.
>
> - exclude_hv: we're a guest and don't want the counter to run in HV
> context.
>
> Now, KVM always implies exclude_hv afaict (for guests),

It certaintly does for ARM.

> I'm not sure
> what, if anything Xen does on x86 (IIRC Brendan Gregg once said perf
> works on Xen) -- nor quite sure who to ask, Boris, Jeurgen?

Thanks,

Andrew Murray
>