Thread (29 messages) 29 messages, 4 authors, 2021-09-21

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] perf: KVM: Fix, optimize, and clean up callbacks

From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: 2021-09-16 21:38:14
Also in: kvm, kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-riscv, lkml, xen-devel

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
quoted
Like Xu (2):
  perf/core: Rework guest callbacks to prepare for static_call support
  perf/core: Use static_call to optimize perf_guest_info_callbacks

Sean Christopherson (11):
  perf: Ensure perf_guest_cbs aren't reloaded between !NULL check and
    deref
  KVM: x86: Register perf callbacks after calling vendor's
    hardware_setup()
  KVM: x86: Register Processor Trace interrupt hook iff PT enabled in
    guest
  perf: Stop pretending that perf can handle multiple guest callbacks
  perf: Force architectures to opt-in to guest callbacks
  KVM: x86: Drop current_vcpu for kvm_running_vcpu + kvm_arch_vcpu
    variable
  KVM: x86: More precisely identify NMI from guest when handling PMI
  KVM: Move x86's perf guest info callbacks to generic KVM
  KVM: x86: Move Intel Processor Trace interrupt handler to vmx.c
  KVM: arm64: Convert to the generic perf callbacks
  KVM: arm64: Drop perf.c and fold its tiny bits of code into arm.c /
    pmu.c
Argh, sorry, I somehow managed to miss all of your replies.  I'll get back to
this series next week.  Thanks for the quick response!
Lets keep the whole intel_pt crud inside x86...
In theory, I like the idea of burying intel_pt inside x86 (and even in Intel+VMX code
for the most part), but the actual implementation is a bit gross.  Because of the
whole "KVM can be a module" thing, either the static call and __static_call_return0
would need to be exported, or a new register/unregister pair would have to be exported.

The unregister path would also need its own synchronize_rcu().  In general, I
don't love duplicating the logic, but it's not the end of the world.

Either way works for me.  Paolo or Peter, do either of you have a preference?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
---
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/events/core.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/events/core.c
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/events/core.c
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_pmu_guest_ge
 
 DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_state, *(perf_guest_cbs->state));
 DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_get_ip, *(perf_guest_cbs->get_ip));
-DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr, *(perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr));
+DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr, unsigned int (*)(void));
FWIW, the param needs to be a raw function, not a function pointer. 
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help