Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:50:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eR2jWM3_4EPWS+EXY=7b-hJyZGg2nh1sq0iaVd0kDFjZg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20231104000239.367005-1-seanjc@google.com> <20231104000239.367005-9-seanjc@google.com>
 <CALMp9eR2jWM3_4EPWS+EXY=7b-hJyZGg2nh1sq0iaVd0kDFjZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZUlDjTos7rnVZVgt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/20] KVM: selftests: Extend {kvm,this}_pmu_has() to
 support fixed counters
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
        Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 04, 2023, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 5:02=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google=
.com> wrote:
> > +#define        KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(__reg, __bit)                      =
         \
> > +({                                                                    =
 \
> > +       struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature feature =3D {                       =
   \
> > +               .f =3D KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0xa, 0, __reg, __bit),      =
   \
> > +       };                                                             =
 \
> > +                                                                      =
 \
> > +       kvm_static_assert(KVM_CPUID_##__reg =3D=3D KVM_CPUID_EBX ||    =
     \
> > +                         KVM_CPUID_##__reg =3D=3D KVM_CPUID_ECX);     =
     \
> > +       feature;                                                       =
 \
> >  })
> >
> > -#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_BRANCH_INSNS_RETIRED   KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(5)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_CPU_CYCLES             KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 0)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_INSNS_RETIRED          KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 1)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_REFERENCE_CYCLES       KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 2)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_LLC_REFERENCES         KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 3)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_LLC_MISSES             KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 4)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_BRANCH_INSNS_RETIRED   KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 5)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_BRANCHES_MISPREDICTED  KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(EBX=
, 6)
>=20
> Why not add top down slots now?

Laziness? =20

> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_INSNS_RETIRED_FIXED    KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(ECX=
, 0)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_CPU_CYCLES_FIXED       KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(ECX=
, 1)
> > +#define X86_PMU_FEATURE_REFERENCE_CYCLES_FIXED KVM_X86_PMU_FEATURE(ECX=
, 2)
>=20
> Perhaps toss 'TSC' between CYCLES and FIXED?

I think X86_PMU_FEATURE_REFERENCE_TSC_CYCLES_FIXED is more aligned with how=
 the
SDM (and English in general) talks about reference cycles.

> And add top down slots now>

Ya.