Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: 6FW52os4Cqdppnqxtk8go5qa+ytKpuW9k8GMAB5rcse/HSNhWIiS/XID9+v3JaI2tmGths1wuM
 1/k4su+x7p6Q==
IronPort-SDR: x4mU38ekOVVnhCLzj4ikBS00IORLsjiwhezhOLTwcov5Upmvli3C5Co0Ceq4yImlh1N1IOrj7G
 u+WhCFuAXheQ==
Reply-To: like.xu@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 08/11] KVM: x86/pmu: Emulate LBR feature via guest LBR
 event
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, ak@linux.intel.com,
        wei.w.wang@intel.com
References: <20200514083054.62538-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20200514083054.62538-9-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20200519110355.GI279861@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>
Organization: Intel OTC
Message-ID: <9d65806b-ec38-0ad7-b216-48ddf30ac361@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 20:40:07 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200519110355.GI279861@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/5/19 19:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:30:51PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> @@ -6698,6 +6698,7 @@ static fastpath_t vmx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   
>>   	if (vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)->version)
>>   		atomic_switch_perf_msrs(vmx);
>> +
>>   	atomic_switch_umwait_control_msr(vmx);
>>   
>>   	if (enable_preemption_timer)
> Is this where the test to see if any of the KVM events went into ERROR
> state should go?
Yes, I chose the same location to do LBR availability check in the next 
patch 0010.

Actually for normal vPMU counters and their events,
I'm not sure whether pr_warn() should also be used widely.

The current approach is to keep vPMC silent when it may be inaccurate.

I may need @Paolo's attitude on this issue.

Thanks,
Like Xu
>
> 	if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ERROR) {
> 		pr_warn("unhappy, someone stole our counter\n");
> 	}
>
> like..