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;
Date:   Mon, 8 Mar 2021 09:53:52 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        "Thomas Gleixner
        (x86/pti/timer/core/smp/irq/perf/efi/locking/ras/objtool)
        (x86@kernel.org)" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/perf: Fix guest_get_msrs static call if there is no
 PMU
Message-ID: <YEXmILSHDNDuMk/N@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210305223331.4173565-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <053d0a22-394d-90d0-8d3b-3cd37ca3f378@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <053d0a22-394d-90d0-8d3b-3cd37ca3f378@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:25:59AM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2021/3/6 6:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Handle a NULL x86_pmu.guest_get_msrs at invocation instead of patching
> > in perf_guest_get_msrs_nop() during setup.  If there is no PMU, setup
> 
> "If there is no PMU" ...

Then you shouldn't be calling this either ofcourse :-)

> > @@ -671,7 +671,11 @@ void x86_pmu_disable_all(void)
> >   struct perf_guest_switch_msr *perf_guest_get_msrs(int *nr)
> >   {
> > -	return static_call(x86_pmu_guest_get_msrs)(nr);
> > +	if (x86_pmu.guest_get_msrs)
> > +		return static_call(x86_pmu_guest_get_msrs)(nr);
> 
> How about using "static_call_cond" per commit "452cddbff7" ?

Given the one user in atomic_switch_perf_msrs() that should work because
it doesn't seem to care about nr_msrs when !msrs.

Still, it calling atomic_switch_perf_msrs() and
intel_pmu_lbr_is_enabled() when there isn't a PMU at all is of course, a
complete waste of cycles.