Hi Marc,
On 2021/4/15 18:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:59:26 +0100,
> Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 2021/4/14 21:44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> KVM/arm64 is the sole user of perf_num_counters(), and really
>>> could do without it. Stop using the obsolete API by relying on
>>> the existing probing code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c | 7 +------
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 2 +-
>>> include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 4 ++++
>>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
>>> index 739164324afe..b8b398670ef2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
>>> @@ -50,12 +50,7 @@ static struct perf_guest_info_callbacks kvm_guest_cbs = {
>>>
>>> int kvm_perf_init(void)
>>> {
>>> - /*
>>> - * Check if HW_PERF_EVENTS are supported by checking the number of
>>> - * hardware performance counters. This could ensure the presence of
>>> - * a physical PMU and CONFIG_PERF_EVENT is selected.
>>> - */
>>> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_PMU) && perf_num_counters() > 0)
>>> + if (kvm_pmu_probe_pmuver() != 0xf)
>> The probe() function may be called many times
>> (kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr also calls it). I don't know whether the
>> first calling is enough. If so, can we use a static variable in it,
>> so the following calling can return the result right away?
>
> No, because that wouldn't help with crappy big-little implementations
> that could have PMUs with different versions. We want to find the
> version at the point where the virtual PMU is created, which is why we
> call the probe function once per vcpu.
I see.
But AFAICS the pmuver is placed in kvm->arch, and the probe function is called
once per VM. Maybe I miss something.
>
> This of course is broken in other ways (BL+KVM is a total disaster
> when it comes to PMU), but making this static would just make it
> worse.
OK.
Thanks,
Keqian
