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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86/vPMU: Add lazy mechanism to release
 perf_event per vPMC
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        ak@linux.intel.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com,
        like.xu@intel.com, ehankland@google.com, arbel.moshe@oracle.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190930072257.43352-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20190930072257.43352-4-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20191001082321.GL4519@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e77fe471-1c65-571d-2b9e-d97c2ee0706f@linux.intel.com>
 <20191008121140.GN2294@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <d492e08e-bf14-0a8b-bc8c-397f8893ddb5@linux.intel.com>
 <bfd23868-064e-4bf5-4dfb-211d36c409c1@redhat.com>
 <20191009081602.GI2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <795f5e36-0211-154f-fcf0-f2f1771bf724@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 11:21:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191009081602.GI2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/10/19 10:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:15:03AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> For stuff like hardware registers, bitfields are probably a bad idea
>> anyway, so let's only consider the case of space optimization.
> 
> Except for hardware registers? I actually like bitfields to describe
> hardware registers.

In theory yes, in practice for MMIO it's a problem that you're not able
to see the exact compiler reads or writes.  Of course you can do:

	union {
		struct {
			/* some bitfields here
		} u;
		u32 val;
	}

and only use the bitfields after reading/writing from the register.

> But worse, as used in the parent thread:
> 
> 	u8	count:7;
> 	bool	flag:1;
> 
> Who says the @flag thing will even be the msb of the initial u8 and not
> a whole new variable due to change in base type?

Good point.

>> bool bitfields preserve the magic behavior where something like this:
>>
>>   foo->x = y;
>>
>> (x is a bool bitfield) would be compiled as
>>
>>   foo->x = (y != 0);
> 
> This is confusion; if y is a single bit bitfield, then there is
> absolutely _NO_ difference between these two expressions.

y is not in a struct so it cannot be a single bit bitfield. :) If y is
an int and foo->x is a bool bitfield, you get the following:

	foo->x = 6;	/* foo->x is 1, it would be 0 for int:1 */
	foo->x = 7;	/* foo->x is 1, it would be 1 for int:1 */

Anyway it's good that we agree on the important thing about the patch!

Paolo

> The _only_ thing about _Bool is that it magically casts values to 0,1.
> Single bit bitfield variables have no choice but to already be in that
> range.