[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <662e93f9-e858-689d-d203-742731ecad2c@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:05:25 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Artem Kashkanov <artem.kashkanov@...el.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] perf: KVM: Fix, optimize, and clean up callbacks
On 17/09/21 09:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> In theory, I like the idea of burying intel_pt inside x86 (and even in
>> Intel+VMX code for the most part), but the actual implementation is a
>> bit gross. Because of the whole "KVM can be a module" thing,
>
> ARGH!! we should really fix that. I've heard other archs have made much
> better choices here.
I think that's only ARM, and even then it is only because of limitations
of the hardware which mostly apply only if VHE is not in use.
If anything, it's ARM that should support module build in VHE mode
(Linux would still need to know whether it will be running at EL1 or
EL2, but KVM's functionality is as self-contained as on x86 in the VHE
case).
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists