Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "rkrcmar@redhat.com" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>,
        "jannh@google.com" <jannh@google.com>,
        "arei.gonglei@huawei.com" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 4/5] KVM/x86/vPMU: Add APIs to support host
 save/restore the guest lbr stack
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 4/5] KVM/x86/vPMU: Add APIs to support host
 save/restore the guest lbr stack
Thread-Index: AQHUUM3pU3aoeAw5SE6eJtMPeYOl0qT4xgeAgAAO9YCACxkHwA==
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:10:52 +0000
Message-ID: <286AC319A985734F985F78AFA26841F7397FCAF8@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1537437959-8751-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
 <1537437959-8751-5-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
 <20180920153035.GB10360@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180920162407.GA24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180920162407.GA24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.400.15
dlp-reaction: no-action
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Friday, September 21, 2018 12:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:30:35AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > +int intel_pmu_enable_save_guest_lbr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {
> > > +	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> > > +	struct perf_event *event;
> > > +	struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> > > +		.type = PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> > > +		.size = sizeof(attr),
> > > +		.pinned = true,
> > > +		.exclude_host = true,
> > > +		.sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK,
> > > +		.branch_sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK
> |
> > > +				      PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER |
> > > +				      PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL,
> >
> > I think that will allocate an extra perfmon counter, right?
> 
> I throught the same too, but I think the exclude_host/guest, whichever is the
> right one makes that work for regular counters too.

Sorry for being late.

I'm not sure if exclude_host/guest would be suitable, for example, if the guest wants to use a perf counter, host will create a perf event with "exclude_host=true" to have the counter not count in host. And "exclude_guest=true" is a flag to the perf core that the counter should not count when the guest runs.

What would you think if we add a new flag (e.g. .force_no_counters) to the perf core to indicate not allocating a perf counter?

> That code is a wee bit magical and I didn't take the time to reverse engineer
> that. It most certainly needs a comment.

No problem. I will add more comments in the next version.

Best,
Wei