[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] xen: Expose the PMU to the guests
- To: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:03:23 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=PPvXMUt1yXPsruUB6mUTf5wWpPPb1iAQDcQabh6jiJ8=; b=oHKe6IIq1eVNWtqUELfkSlQzjLwy9GyHKCNdhZRY+bQ4GjX7s+sVCxvlRLUdhmCwQW1qE/d9xuDcxkPtv560dac/g3819CzYWLk1VUUh02/oz+xzKb80ABJ3xTtyY7QIyofFHVmSgt6x/cjTZE1gEnmmnmQGt04Zx2wfPdNas8YRb4Q/Jcl1xhBxC4AA1Z3PdiKRqq4T/5Z6eBrlIW1llTFEUIPTQSDF0bOT/jqTYB4LQzFcF0ycBBxxUkwQ4EYvbNkmHcuSDjanz2IBYa9frAnjhIs1qIanz9QxFOq6SFfhvtJH2uq9nyU0o15KMQKBbEf96CIL/WZfnGiMu5Y7xg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OFuJVeALfFFxIW4k3Jz0KiYgglgwwZ1x3ya8lcLINj9lVUACo4zeEeTOZLnqV6N+zXu1o+RieEqYdxWC+8wtHz1DXedGUdT43RM01ZF8lJjelBc5wnUfagv7ovLO+fniS5wQVr6umsWRvl1S/y1zIY7/FWbBunfLg0Y8l4x/YulNBDSTJDY/GmetJfbCmqB1EjZmkLlG34/rftTNEEsGZsMx3IEmY/ZlvD9NPuFzYDtTxHHnQgP3HskjJAR3ilyEDqprYdMlD/gbs6wLaxWvrnQAQa4v9sOTMz8XRh1fTiRwNTks/wLxMh1maTvxTnOQLe0RmnVgxrGz5qvach5cwg==
- Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Rosbrook <rosbrookn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Christian Lindig <christian.lindig@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Scott <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 08:03:29 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 06.10.2021 12:58, Michal Orzel wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> @@ -692,6 +692,12 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if ( config->flags & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu )
> + {
> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vpmu support not ready yet\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
I consider this message potentially misleading (as x86 does have vPMU
support, it merely doesn't get enabled this way). But isn't this redundant
with ...
> @@ -534,6 +535,12 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if ( vpmu && !vpmu_is_available )
> + {
> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vpmu requested but not available\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
... this? (This message is again potentially misleading.)
> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> @@ -70,9 +70,12 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu (1U<<_XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu)
> #define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt 6
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt)
> +/* Should we expose the vPMU to the guest? */
> +#define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu 7
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu)
Like for the earlier patch, I think we should stop with the bad habit of
defining both the bit position and the mask separately.
Jan
|
