Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] KVM/x86: intel_pmu_lbr_enable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/07/2019 10:22 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:

Thanks for sharing. I understand the point of maintaining those models at one place,
but this factor-out doesn't seem very elegant to me, like below

__intel_pmu_init (int model, struct x86_pmu *x86_pmu)
{
...
switch (model)
case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM:
case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EP:
case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EX:
     intel_pmu_lbr_init(x86_pmu);
     if (model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model)
         return;

     /* Other a lot of things init like below..*/
     memcpy(hw_cache_event_ids, nehalem_hw_cache_event_ids,
                    sizeof(hw_cache_event_ids));
     memcpy(hw_cache_extra_regs, nehalem_hw_cache_extra_regs,
                    sizeof(hw_cache_extra_regs));
     x86_pmu.event_constraints = intel_nehalem_event_constraints;
x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_event_constraints;
                 x86_pmu.enable_all = intel_pmu_nhm_enable_all;
                 x86_pmu.extra_regs = intel_nehalem_extra_regs;
  ...

Case...
}
We need insert "if (model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model)" in every "Case xx".

What would be the rationale that we only do lbr_init for "x86_pmu"
when model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model?
(It looks more like a workaround to factor-out the function and get what we want)

I thought the new function may be extended to support fake pmu as below.
It's not only for lbr. PMU has many CPU specific features. It can be used for other features, if you want to check the compatibility in future. But I don't have an example now.

__intel_pmu_init (int model, struct x86_pmu *x86_pmu)
{
bool fake_pmu = (model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model) ? true : false;
...
switch (model)
case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM:
case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EP:
case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EX:
     intel_pmu_lbr_init(x86_pmu);
     x86_pmu->event_constraints = intel_nehalem_event_constraints;
     x86_pmu->pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_event_constraints;
     x86_pmu->enable_all = intel_pmu_nhm_enable_all;
     x86_pmu->extra_regs = intel_nehalem_extra_regs;

     if (fake_pmu)
         return;

It looks similar as the one I shared above, the difference is that more things
(e.g. constraints) are assigned to x86_fake_pmu.
I'm not sure about the logic behind it (still look like a workaround).




     /* Global variables should not be updated for fake PMU */
     memcpy(hw_cache_event_ids, nehalem_hw_cache_event_ids,
                    sizeof(hw_cache_event_ids));
     memcpy(hw_cache_extra_regs, nehalem_hw_cache_extra_regs,
                    sizeof(hw_cache_extra_regs));



I would prefer having them separated as this patch for now - it is logically more clear to me.


But it will be a problem for maintenance. Perf developer probably forget to update the list in KVM. I think you have to regularly check the perf code.


It's been very common in hypervisor development. That's why we have hypervisor developers here. When a new platform is added, we will definitely get some work like this to do.

Best,
Wei




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux