[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191029151302.GO4097@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:13:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 8/8] perf/x86: Add event owner check when PEBS output
to Intel PT
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 07:11:17PM -0400, Luwei Kang wrote:
> For PEBS output to Intel PT, a Intel PT event should be the group
> leader of an PEBS counter event in host. For Intel PT
> virtualization enabling in KVM guest, the PT facilities will be
> passthrough to guest and do not allocate PT event from host perf
> event framework. This is different with PMU virtualization.
>
> Intel new hardware feature that can make PEBS enabled in KVM guest
> by output PEBS records to Intel PT buffer. KVM need to allocate
> a event counter for this PEBS event without Intel PT event leader.
>
> This patch add event owner check for PEBS output to PT event that
> only non-kernel event need group leader(PT).
>
> Signed-off-by: Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/core.c | 3 ++-
> include/linux/perf_event.h | 1 +
> kernel/events/core.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> index 7b21455..214041a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> @@ -1014,7 +1014,8 @@ static int collect_events(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct perf_event *leader,
> * away, the group was broken down and this singleton event
> * can't schedule any more.
> */
> - if (is_pebs_pt(leader) && !leader->aux_event)
> + if (is_pebs_pt(leader) && !leader->aux_event &&
> + !is_kernel_event(leader))
indent fail, but also, I'm not sure I buy this.
Surely pt-on-kvm has a perf event to claim PT for the vCPU context?
Even if not, this is not strictly correct. Not even now is KVM the sole
user of perf_event_create_kernel_counter(), so saying any kernel event
is excempt from this scheduling constraint is jsut wrong.
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists