[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eQ4Xj5D-kgqVMKUNmdF37rLcMRXyDYdQU339sRCKZ7d9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 11:47:54 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhang Xiong <xiong.y.zhang@...el.com>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch v2 4/5] x86: pmu: Support validation for
Intel PMU fixed counter 3
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:22 AM Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Intel CPUs, like Sapphire Rapids, introduces a new fixed counter
> (fixed counter 3) to counter/sample topdown.slots event, but current
> code still doesn't cover this new fixed counter.
>
> So this patch adds code to validate this new fixed counter can count
> slots event correctly.
I'm not convinced that this actually validates anything.
Suppose, for example, that KVM used fixed counter 1 when the guest
asked for fixed counter 3. Wouldn't this test still pass?
> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> x86/pmu.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
> index 6bd8f6d53f55..404dc7b62ac2 100644
> --- a/x86/pmu.c
> +++ b/x86/pmu.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ struct pmu_event {
> {"fixed 1", MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR0, 10*N, 10.2*N},
> {"fixed 2", MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR0 + 1, 1*N, 500*N},
> {"fixed 3", MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR0 + 2, 0.1*N, 300*N},
> + {"fixed 4", MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR0 + 3, 1*N, 5000*N},
> };
>
> char *buf;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists