On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:44:13PM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
> Will adding the following comments help you ?
>
> +/*
> + * Currently, the only caller of this function is the atomic_switch_perf_msrs().
> + * The host perf conext helps to prepare the values of the real hardware for
> + * a set of msrs that need to be switched atomically in a vmx transaction.
> + *
> + * For example, the pseudocode needed to add a new msr should look like:
> + *
> + * arr[(*nr)++] = (struct perf_guest_switch_msr){
> + * .msr = the hardware msr address,
> + * .host = the value the hardware has when it doesn't run a guest,
> + * .guest = the value the hardware has when it runs a guest,
So personally I think the .host and .guest naming is terrible here,
because both values are host values. But I don't know enough about virt
to know if there's accepted nomencature for this.
> + * };
> + *
> + * These values have nothing to do with the emulated values the guest sees
> + * when it uses {RD,WR}MSR, which should be handled in the KVM context.
> + */
> static struct perf_guest_switch_msr *intel_guest_get_msrs(int *nr, void *data)
Yes, now at least one can understand wth this function does, even though
the actual naming is still horrible. Thanks!
Additionally, would it make sense to add a pointer to the KVM code that
does the emulation for each MSR listed in this function?
