Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:09:09 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC  8/9] RISC-V: KVM: Implement perf support
Message-ID: <Y4oxNbQwOldICdnw@google.com>
References: <20220718170205.2972215-1-atishp@rivosinc.com>
 <20220718170205.2972215-9-atishp@rivosinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220718170205.2972215-9-atishp@rivosinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, Atish Patra wrote:
> RISC-V SBI PMU & Sscofpmf ISA extension allows supporting perf in
> the virtualization enviornment as well. KVM implementation
> relies on SBI PMU extension for most of the part while traps
> & emulates the CSRs read for counter access.

For the benefit of non-RISCV people, the changelog (and documentation?) should
explain why RISC-V doesn't need to tap into kvm_register_perf_callbacks().
Presumably there's something in the "RISC-V SBI PMU & Sscofpmf ISA extension" spec
that allows hardware to differentiate between events that are for guest vs. host?