Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141538-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:32:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Zhgh_vQYx2MCzma6@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240126085444.324918-1-xiong.y.zhang@linux.intel.com>
 <20240126085444.324918-2-xiong.y.zhang@linux.intel.com> <ZhgYD4B1szpbvlHq@google.com>
 <56a98cae-36c5-40f8-8554-77f9d9c9a1b0@linux.intel.com> <CALMp9eRwsyBUHRtjKZDyU6i13hr5tif3ty7tpNjfs=Zq3RA8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zhgh_vQYx2MCzma6@google.com>
Message-ID: <Zhg6th5ye-LPynY3@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/41] perf: x86/intel: Support PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>, Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@linux.intel.com>, 
	pbonzini@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, mizhang@google.com, 
	kan.liang@intel.com, zhenyuw@linux.intel.com, dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com, 
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhiyuan.lv@intel.com, eranian@google.com, 
	irogers@google.com, samantha.alt@intel.com, like.xu.linux@gmail.com, 
	chao.gao@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:21=E2=80=AFAM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@linux.in=
tel.com> wrote:
> > > On 2024-04-11 1:04 p.m., Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, Xiong Zhang wrote:
> > > >> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Define and apply the PERF_PMU_CAP_VPMU_PASSTHROUGH flag for the ve=
rsion 4
> > > >> and later PMUs
> > > >
> > > > Why?  I get that is an RFC, but it's not at all obvious to me why t=
his needs to
> > > > take a dependency on v4+.
> > >
> > > The IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS_RESET/SET MSRs are introduced in v4. They
> > > are used in the save/restore of PMU state. Please see PATCH 23/41.
> > > So it's limited to v4+ for now.
> >=20
> > Prior to version 4, semi-passthrough is possible, but IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_=
STATUS
> > has to be intercepted and emulated, since it is non-trivial to set bits=
 in
> > this MSR.
>=20
> Ah, then this _perf_ capability should be PERF_PMU_CAP_WRITABLE_GLOBAL_ST=
ATUS or

And now I see that the capabilities are arch agnostic, whereas GLOBAL_STATU=
S
obviously is not.  Unless a writable GLOBAL_STATUS is a hard requirement fo=
r perf
to be able to support a mediated PMU, this capability probably doesn't need=
 to
exist, e.g. KVM can check for a writable GLOBAL_STATUS just as easily as pe=
rf
(or perf can stuff x86_pmu_capability.writable_global_status directly).