[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191220180959.GF25258@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:10:00 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/18] perf: arm_spe: Handle guest/host exclusion flags
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:30:22PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> A side effect of supporting the SPE in guests is that we prevent the
> host from collecting data whilst inside a guest thus creating a black-out
> window. This occurs because instead of emulating the SPE, we share it
> with our guests.
We used to permit this; do we know if anyone is using it?
Thanks,
Mark.
> Let's accurately describe our capabilities by using the perf exclude
> flags to prevent !exclude_guest and exclude_host flags from being used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> index 2d24af4cfcab..3703dbf459de 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> @@ -679,6 +679,9 @@ static int arm_spe_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> if (attr->exclude_idle)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> + if (!attr->exclude_guest || attr->exclude_host)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> /*
> * Feedback-directed frequency throttling doesn't work when we
> * have a buffer of samples. We'd need to manually count the
> --
> 2.21.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists