On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:03 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.16.76-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
This seems more like an enhancement than a bug fix.
Is this really the type of patch that is appropriate
for stable?
> ------------------
>
> From: Like Xu <like.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit 6fc3977ccc5d3c22e851f2dce2d3ce2a0a843842 upstream.
>
> If a perf_event creation fails due to any reason of the host perf
> subsystem, it has no chance to log the corresponding event for guest
> which may cause abnormal sampling data in guest result. In debug mode,
> this message helps to understand the state of vPMC and we may not
> limit the number of occurrences but not in a spamming style.
>
> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [bwh: Backported to 3.16: adjust context]
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> @@ -187,8 +187,8 @@ static void reprogram_counter(struct kvm
> intr ? kvm_perf_overflow_intr :
> kvm_perf_overflow, pmc);
> if (IS_ERR(event)) {
> - printk_once("kvm: pmu event creation failed %ld\n",
> - PTR_ERR(event));
> + pr_debug_ratelimited("kvm_pmu: event creation failed %ld for pmc->idx = %d\n",
> + PTR_ERR(event), pmc->idx);
> return;
> }
>
>
