[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eRwsyBUHRtjKZDyU6i13hr5tif3ty7tpNjfs=Zq3RA8RA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:24:06 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
pbonzini@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, mizhang@...gle.com,
kan.liang@...el.com, zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com, dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhiyuan.lv@...el.com, eranian@...gle.com,
irogers@...gle.com, samantha.alt@...el.com, like.xu.linux@...il.com,
chao.gao@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/41] perf: x86/intel: Support PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:21 AM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024-04-11 1:04 p.m., Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, Xiong Zhang wrote:
> >> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> Define and apply the PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH flag for the version 4
> >> and later PMUs
> >
> > Why? I get that is an RFC, but it's not at all obvious to me why this needs to
> > take a dependency on v4+.
>
> The IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS_RESET/SET MSRs are introduced in v4. They
> are used in the save/restore of PMU state. Please see PATCH 23/41.
> So it's limited to v4+ for now.
Prior to version 4, semi-passthrough is possible, but
IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS has to be intercepted and emulated, since it
is non-trivial to set bits in this MSR.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists