Re: [PATCH v3 12/16] KVM: Move x86's perf guest info callbacks to generic KVM
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-10-11 15:33:47
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm, linux-perf-users, linux-riscv, lkml, xen-devel
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:46:25 +0100, Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Marc Zyngier wrote:quoted
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:05:29 +0100, Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index ed940aec89e0..828b6eaa2c56 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h@@ -673,6 +673,14 @@ int io_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa); void kvm_perf_init(void); void kvm_perf_teardown(void); +#ifdef CONFIG_GUEST_PERF_EVENTS +static inline bool kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)Pardon my x86 ignorance, what is PMI? PMU Interrupt?Ya, Performance Monitoring Interrupt. I didn't realize the term wasn't common perf terminology. Maybe kvm_arch_perf_events_in_guest() to be less x86-centric?
Up to you. I would be happy with just a comment.
quoted
quoted
+{ + /* Any callback while a vCPU is loaded is considered to be in guest. */ + return !!vcpu; +} +#endifDo you really need this #ifdef?Nope, should compile fine without it, though simply dropping the #ifdef would make make the semantics of the function wrong, even if nothing consumes it. Tweak it to use IS_ENABLED()? return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GUEST_PERF_EVENTS) && !!vcpu;
LGTM. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel