On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 02:44:05PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
KVM/arm64 is the sole user of perf_num_counters(), and really
could do without it. Stop using the obsolete API by relying on
the existing probing code.
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c | 7 +------
arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 2 +-
include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 4 ++++
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
index 739164324afe..b8b398670ef2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
@@ -50,12 +50,7 @@ static struct perf_guest_info_callbacks kvm_guest_cbs = {
int kvm_perf_init(void)
{
- /*
- * Check if HW_PERF_EVENTS are supported by checking the number of
- * hardware performance counters. This could ensure the presence of
- * a physical PMU and CONFIG_PERF_EVENT is selected.
- */
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_PMU) && perf_num_counters() > 0)
+ if (kvm_pmu_probe_pmuver() != 0xf)
Took me a while to figure out that this returns 0xf if the hardware has a
PMUVer of 0x0, so it's all good:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel