lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 22:14:12 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Make part of the Intel v2 PMU MSRs handling x86 generic On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, Like Xu wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86/pmu: Rewrite reprogram_counters() to improve > performance > > Before using pmu->reprogram_pmi, the test for a valid pmc is always > applied. This part of the redundancy could be removed by setting the > counters' bitmask directly, and furthermore triggering KVM_REQ_PMU > only once to save more cycles. Assuming you plan on posting this, please explicitly state what the patch does. "This part of the redundancy could" only says what _could_ be done, not what is actually done. Oftentimes, a changelog will say something "could" be done when talking about alternative solutions. So when I see "could", I think "this is what the patch _isn't_ doing".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists