[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69bac394-f10c-c0ad-a23d-36cbbd479212@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:14:16 +0800
From: "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>, Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/pmu: Add '.exclude_hv = 1' for guest perf_event
On 2020/8/12 21:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/08/20 14:56, Xu, Like wrote:
>> My proposal is to define:
>> the "hypervisor privilege levels" events in the KVM/x86 context as
>> all the host kernel events plus /dev/kvm user space events.
> What are "/dev/kvm user space events"? In any case, this patch should
> be included only in the series that adds exclude_hv support in arch/x86.
The exclude_kernel events from the QEMU or whoever else has opened /dev/kvm.
Do you see any (patches) gap if we map
the exclude_host events into exclude_hv events naturally ?
Thanks,
Like Xu
> Paolo
>
>> If we add ".exclude_hv = 1" in the pmc_reprogram_counter(),
>> do you see any side effect to cover the above usages?
>>
>> The fact that exclude_hv has never been used in x86 does help
>> the generic perf code to handle permission checks in a more concise way.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists