On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:25 AM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 03-Mar-22 10:08 AM, Jim Mattson wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:02 AM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 21-Feb-22 1:27 PM, Like Xu wrote: > >>> On 21/2/2022 3:31 pm, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > >>>> void reprogram_counter(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, int pmc_idx) > >>>> { > >>>> struct kvm_pmc *pmc = kvm_x86_ops.pmu_ops->pmc_idx_to_pmc(pmu, pmc_idx); > >>>> + bool is_intel = !strncmp(kvm_x86_ops.name, "kvm_intel", 9); > >>> > >>> How about using guest_cpuid_is_intel(vcpu) > >> > >> Yeah, that's better then strncmp(). > >> > >>> directly in the reprogram_gp_counter() ? > >> > >> We need this flag in reprogram_fixed_counter() as well. > > > > Explicit "is_intel" checks in any form seem clumsy, > > Indeed. However introducing arch specific callback for such tiny > logic seemed overkill to me. So thought to just do it this way. I agree that arch-specific callbacks are ridiculous for these distinctions. > > since we have > > already put some effort into abstracting away the implementation > > differences in struct kvm_pmu. It seems like these differences could > > be handled by adding three masks to that structure: the "raw event > > mask" (i.e. event selector and unit mask), the hsw_in_tx mask, and the > > hsw_in_tx_checkpointed mask. > > struct kvm_pmu is arch independent. You mean struct kvm_pmu_ops? No; I meant exactly what I said. See, for example, how the reserved_bits field is used. It is initialized in the vendor-specific pmu_refresh functions, and from then on, it facilitates vendor-specific behaviors without explicit checks or vendor-specific callbacks. An eventsel_mask field would be a natural addition to this structure, to deal with the vendor-specific event selector widths. The hsw_in_tx_mask and hsw_in_tx_checkpointed_mask fields are less natural, since they will be 0 on AMD, but they would make it simple to write the corresponding code in a vendor-neutral fashion. BTW, am I the only one who finds the HSW_ prefixes a bit absurd here, since TSX was never functional on Haswell? > > > > These changes should also be coordinated with Like's series that > > eliminates all of the PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE nonsense. > > I'll rebase this on Like's patch series. That's not exactly what I meant, but okay.