On Thu, Nov 09, 2023, Dapeng Mi wrote: > > On 11/8/2023 8:31 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Extend the PMU counters test to verify KVM emulation of fixed counters in > > addition to general purpose counters. Fixed counters add an extra wrinkle > > in the form of an extra supported bitmask. Thus quoth the SDM: > > > > fixed-function performance counter 'i' is supported if ECX[i] || (EDX[4:0] > i) > > > > Test that KVM handles a counter being available through either method. > > > > Co-developed-by: Like Xu <likexu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c > > index 6f2d3a64a118..8c934e261f2d 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c > > @@ -285,13 +285,19 @@ __GUEST_ASSERT(expect_gp ? vector == GP_VECTOR : !vector, \ > > expect_gp ? "#GP" : "no fault", msr, vector) \ > > static void guest_rd_wr_counters(uint32_t base_msr, uint8_t nr_possible_counters, > > - uint8_t nr_counters) > > + uint8_t nr_counters, uint32_t or_mask) > > > 'or_mask' doesn't show a clear meaning, "counters_bitmap" may be a better > name. I don't love "or_mask" either, but I like "counters_bitmap" far less, as it doesn't provide any hint as to the polarity or behavior. Readers that aren't familiar with the kludgy enumeration of PMCs in CPUID won't already know that it's a mask that's OR-d in, e.g. counters_bitmap could be a replacement, it could be an AND-mask, it could be something entirely unrelated. I opted for a name that describe the behavior because I don't see a way to succintly capture the (IMO) weird enumeration.
