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:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Micro-optimize vmexit time when not exposing PMU
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eTSBpaPYKE6toPCbSfCQGhM9M4=1Z1FFBGQ9Bm_pKSpuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1584007547-4802-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <87r1xxrhb0.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <CALMp9eTSBpaPYKE6toPCbSfCQGhM9M4=1Z1FFBGQ9Bm_pKSpuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:08:01 +0100
Message-ID: <877dzor5am.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:36 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, speaking about cloud providers and the 'micro' nature of this
>> optimization, would it rather make sense to introduce a static branch
>> (the policy to disable vPMU is likely to be host wide, right)?
>
> Speaking for a cloud provider, no, the policy is not likely to be host-wide.

Ah, then it's just my flawed picture of the world where hosts only run
instances of the same type/family because it's mych easier to partition
them this way.

Scratch the static branch idea then.

-- 
Vitaly