[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181105093413.GO3178@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:34:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, like.xu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] perf/x86: add support to mask counters from host
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 05:08:31PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 10:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > @@ -723,6 +724,9 @@ static void perf_sched_init(struct perf_sched *sched, struct event_constraint **
> > > sched->max_weight = wmax;
> > > sched->max_gp = gpmax;
> > > sched->constraints = constraints;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SUP_INTEL
> > > + sched->state.used[0] = cpuc->intel_ctrl_guest_mask;
> > > +#endif
> > NAK. This completely undermines the whole purpose of event scheduling.
> >
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Could you share more details how it would affect the host side event
> scheduling?
Not all counters are equal; suppose you have one of those chips that can
only do PEBS on counter 0, and then hand out 0 to the guest for some
silly event. That means nobody can use PEBS anymore.
> Would you have any suggestions?
I would suggest not to use virt in the first place of course ;-)
But whatever you do; you have to keep using host events to emulate the
guest PMU. That doesn't mean you can't improve things; that code is
quite insane from what you told earlier.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists