[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210115182700.byczztx3vjhsq3p3@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:27:00 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, eranian@...gle.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
luwei.kang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] KVM: x86/pmu: Add support to enable Guest PEBS
via DS
> I'm asking about ucode/hardare. Is the "guest pebs buffer write -> PEBS PMI"
> guaranteed to be atomic?
Of course not.
>
> In practice, under what scenarios will guest counters get cross-mapped? And,
> how does this support affect guest accuracy? I.e. how bad do things get for the
> guest if we simply disable guest counters if they can't have a 1:1 association
> with their physical counter?
This would completely break perfmon for the guest, likely with no way to
recover.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists