On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 17:29 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:19:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 14:01 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > +static void atomic_switch_perf_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> > > +{
> > > + int i, nr_msrs;
> > > + struct perf_guest_switch_msr *msrs;
> > > +
> > > + msrs = perf_guest_get_msrs(&nr_msrs);
> > > +
> > > + if (!msrs)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_msrs; i++)
> > > + if (msrs[i].host == msrs[i].guest)
> > > + clear_atomic_switch_msr(vmx, msrs[i].msr);
> > > + else
> > > + add_atomic_switch_msr(vmx, msrs[i].msr, msrs[i].guest,
> > > + msrs[i].host);
> > > +}
> >
> > I don't think this will actually compile with PERF_EVENTS=n due to
> > struct perf_guest_switch_msr not being defined.
> Oops you are right. Turns out it is not enough to remove PERF_EVENTS
> from .config to disable it. It re-appears after "make oldconfig". Should
> I send incremental patch to fix that?
Frederic, what's the status of being able to disable PERF on x86 again?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
