[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b209d39c-8c0d-93ce-c81d-be2dfea33ad6@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:01:52 +0800
From: "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 2021/3/8 16:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
This suggestion is reminiscent of a sad regression of optimizing it:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200619094046.654019-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20210209225653.1393771-1-jmattson@google.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists