Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86/vPMU: Reuse perf_event to avoid unnecessary pmc_reprogram_counter

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:22:56PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> index 46875bbd0419..74bc5c42b8b5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> @@ -140,6 +140,35 @@ static void pmc_reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc, u32 type,
>  	clear_bit(pmc->idx, (unsigned long*)&pmc_to_pmu(pmc)->reprogram_pmi);
>  }
>  
> +static void pmc_pause_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> +{
> +	if (!pmc->perf_event)
> +		return;
> +
> +	pmc->counter = pmc_read_counter(pmc);
> +
> +	perf_event_disable(pmc->perf_event);
> +
> +	/* reset count to avoid redundant accumulation */
> +	local64_set(&pmc->perf_event->count, 0);

Yuck, don't frob in data structures you don't own.

Just like you exported the IOC_PERIOD thing, so too is there a
IOC_RESET.

Furthermore; wth do you call pmc_read_counter() _before_ doing
perf_event_disable() ? Doing it the other way around is much cheaper,
even better, you can use perf_event_count() after disable.

> +}
> +
> +static bool pmc_resume_counter(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
> +{
> +	if (!pmc->perf_event)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/* recalibrate sample period and check if it's accepted by perf core */
> +	if (perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event,
> +			(-pmc->counter) & pmc_bitmask(pmc)))
> +		return false;

I'd do the reset here, but then you have 3 function in a row that do
perf_event_ctx_lock()+perf_event_ctx_unlock(), which is rather
expensive.

> +
> +	/* reuse perf_event to serve as pmc_reprogram_counter() does*/
> +	perf_event_enable(pmc->perf_event);
> +	clear_bit(pmc->idx, (unsigned long *)&pmc_to_pmu(pmc)->reprogram_pmi);
> +	return true;
> +}