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;
Date:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 11:48:41 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        robin.murphy@arm.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
        jgross@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] x86: perf/core: use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE for
 exclude incapable PMUs
Message-ID: <20190108104841.GD6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1546878450-20341-1-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com>
 <1546878450-20341-11-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1546878450-20341-11-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:27PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> For drivers that do not support context exclusion let's advertise the
> PERF_PMU_CAP_NOEXCLUDE capability. This ensures that perf will
> prevent us from handling events where any exclusion flags are set.
> Let's also remove the now unnecessary check for exclusion flags.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/events/amd/ibs.c          | 13 +------------
>  arch/x86/events/amd/power.c        | 10 ++--------
>  arch/x86/events/intel/cstate.c     | 12 +++---------
>  arch/x86/events/intel/rapl.c       |  9 ++-------
>  arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c |  9 ++-------
>  arch/x86/events/msr.c              | 10 ++--------
>  6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

You (correctly) don't add CAP_NO_EXCLUDE to the main x86 pmu code, but
then you also don't check if it handles all the various exclude options
correctly/consistently.

Now; I must admit that that is a bit of a maze, but I think we can at
least add exclude_idle and exclude_hv fails in there, nothing uses those
afaict.

On the various exclude options; they are as follows (IIUC):

  - exclude_guest: we're a HV/host-kernel and we don't want the counter
                   to run when we run a guest context.

  - exclude_host: we're a HV/host-kernel and we don't want the counter
                  to run when we run in host context.

  - exclude_hv: we're a guest and don't want the counter to run in HV
                context.

Now, KVM always implies exclude_hv afaict (for guests), I'm not sure
what, if anything Xen does on x86 (IIRC Brendan Gregg once said perf
works on Xen) -- nor quite sure who to ask, Boris, Jeurgen?