Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: omit absent pmu MSRs from MSR list

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: omit absent pmu MSRs from MSR list
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 19:37:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8e169a5-4cf6-8df7-86bb-f70a480c33ad@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eRFUeSB035VEC61CzAg6PY=aApjyiQoSnRydH788COL4w@mail.gmail.com>

On 03/10/19 19:20, Jim Mattson wrote:
> You've truncated the list I originally provided, so I think this need
> only go to MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 17. Otherwise, we could lose
> some valuable MSRs.

This is v2, so it was meant to replace the patch that truncates the
list.  But I can include the other one too, perhaps even ask the x86
maintainers about decreasing INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC to 18.

>> +                       if (msrs_to_save[i] - MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 >=
>> +                           min(INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC, x86_pmu.num_counters_gp))
> Why involve INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC here?

It's not really necessary, but I wanted to imitate how intel_pmu_refresh
initializes pmu->nr_arch_gp_counters.

Paolo

>> +                               continue;
>> +                       break;
>> +               case MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 ... MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 31:
> Same as the two comments above.
>> +                       if (msrs_to_save[i] - MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 >=
>> +                           min(INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC, x86_pmu.num_counters_gp))
>> +                               continue;