[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YEXmILSHDNDuMk/N@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 09:53:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"Thomas Gleixner
(x86/pti/timer/core/smp/irq/perf/efi/locking/ras/objtool)
(x86@...nel.org)" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/perf: Fix guest_get_msrs static call if there is no
PMU
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:25:59AM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2021/3/6 6:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Handle a NULL x86_pmu.guest_get_msrs at invocation instead of patching
> > in perf_guest_get_msrs_nop() during setup. If there is no PMU, setup
>
> "If there is no PMU" ...
Then you shouldn't be calling this either ofcourse :-)
> > @@ -671,7 +671,11 @@ void x86_pmu_disable_all(void)
> > struct perf_guest_switch_msr *perf_guest_get_msrs(int *nr)
> > {
> > - return static_call(x86_pmu_guest_get_msrs)(nr);
> > + if (x86_pmu.guest_get_msrs)
> > + return static_call(x86_pmu_guest_get_msrs)(nr);
>
> How about using "static_call_cond" per commit "452cddbff7" ?
Given the one user in atomic_switch_perf_msrs() that should work because
it doesn't seem to care about nr_msrs when !msrs.
Still, it calling atomic_switch_perf_msrs() and
intel_pmu_lbr_is_enabled() when there isn't a PMU at all is of course, a
complete waste of cycles.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists