[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTeM2RnMCRFoGsZd@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:22:33 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set PMCR_EL0.N for vCPU based
on the associated PMU
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 09:40:44PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
[...]
> +int kvm_arm_pmu_get_max_counters(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> + struct arm_pmu *arm_pmu = kvm->arch.arm_pmu;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
This lockdep assertion is misleading. Readers of kvm_arch::arm_pmu *are
not* serialized by the config_lock.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists