Hi Marc,
On 2020-02-14 6:36 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
@@ -585,6 +585,14 @@ static void kvm_pmu_create_perf_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 select_idx)
pmc->idx != ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX)
return;
+ /*
+ * If we have a filter in place and that the event isn't allowed, do
+ * not install a perf event either.
+ */
+ if (vcpu->kvm->arch.pmu_filter &&
+ !test_bit(eventsel, vcpu->kvm->arch.pmu_filter))
+ return;
If I'm reading the derivation of eventsel right, this will end up
treating cycle counter events (aliased to SW_INCR) differently from
CPU_CYCLES, which doesn't seem desirable.
Also, if the user did try to blacklist SW_INCR for ridiculous reasons,
we'd need to special-case kvm_pmu_software_increment() to make it (not)
work as expected, right?
Robin.
+
memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(struct perf_event_attr));
attr.type = PERF_TYPE_RAW;
attr.size = sizeof(attr);
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
