From: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: Introduce definitions to support static calls for kvm_pmu_ops
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:31:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47734f2c-5588-1c22-ddcf-c486ceab0d34@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YYVSW4Jr75oJ6MhC@google.com>
On 5/11/2021 11:48 pm, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> index 0db1887137d9..b6f08c719125 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>> @@ -50,6 +50,13 @@
>> struct kvm_pmu_ops kvm_pmu_ops __read_mostly;
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_pmu_ops);
>>
>> +#define KVM_X86_PMU_OP(func) \
>> + DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(kvm_x86_pmu_##func, \
>> + *(((struct kvm_pmu_ops *)0)->func))
>> +#define KVM_X86_PMU_OP_NULL KVM_X86_PMU_OP
>
> More of a question for the existing code, what's the point of KVM_X86_OP_NULL?
The comment says:
* KVM_X86_OP_NULL() can leave a NULL definition for the
* case where there is no definition or a function name that
* doesn't match the typical naming convention is supplied.
Does it help ?
> AFAICT, it always resolves to KVM_X86_OP. Unless there's some magic I'm missing,
> I vote we remove KVM_X86_OP_NULL and then not introduce KVM_X86_PMU_OP_NULL.
> And I'm pretty sure it's useless, e.g. get_cs_db_l_bits is defined with the NULL
This transitions will not be included in the next version. Open to you.
> variant, but it's never NULL and its calls aren't guarded with anything. And if
> KVM_X86_OP_NULL is intended to aid in documenting behavior, it's doing a pretty
> miserable job of that :-)
>
>> +#include <asm/kvm-x86-pmu-ops.h>
>> +EXPORT_STATIC_CALL_GPL(kvm_x86_pmu_is_valid_msr);
>
> I'll double down on my nVMX suggestion so that this export can be avoided.
Fine to me.
>
>> static void kvm_pmi_trigger_fn(struct irq_work *irq_work)
>> {
>> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = container_of(irq_work, struct kvm_pmu, irq_work);
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
>> index b2fe135d395a..e5550d4acf14 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h
>> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
>> #define __KVM_X86_PMU_H
>>
>> #include <linux/nospec.h>
>> +#include <linux/static_call_types.h>
>> +#include <linux/static_call.h>
>>
>> #define vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu) (&(vcpu)->arch.pmu)
>> #define pmu_to_vcpu(pmu) (container_of((pmu), struct kvm_vcpu, arch.pmu))
>> @@ -45,6 +47,19 @@ struct kvm_pmu_ops {
>> void (*cleanup)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> };
>>
>> +#define KVM_X86_PMU_OP(func) \
>> + DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(kvm_x86_pmu_##func, *(((struct kvm_pmu_ops *)0)->func))
>> +#define KVM_X86_PMU_OP_NULL KVM_X86_PMU_OP
>> +#include <asm/kvm-x86-pmu-ops.h>
>> +
>> +static inline void kvm_pmu_ops_static_call_update(void)
>> +{
>> +#define KVM_X86_PMU_OP(func) \
>> + static_call_update(kvm_x86_pmu_##func, kvm_pmu_ops.func)
>> +#define KVM_X86_PMU_OP_NULL KVM_X86_PMU_OP
>> +#include <asm/kvm-x86-pmu-ops.h>
>> +}
>
> As alluded to in patch 01, I'd prefer these go in kvm_ops_static_call_update()
> to keep the static call magic somewhat contained.
Thank and applied.
>
>> +
>> static inline u64 pmc_bitmask(struct kvm_pmc *pmc)
>> {
>> struct kvm_pmu *pmu = pmc_to_pmu(pmc);
>> --
>> 2.33.0
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-08 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-03 7:03 [PATCH 0/3] Use static_call for kvm_pmu_ops Like Xu
2021-11-03 7:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: Copy kvm_pmu_ops by value to eliminate layer of indirection Like Xu
2021-11-05 15:30 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-05 15:36 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-08 9:26 ` Like Xu
2021-11-08 9:23 ` Like Xu
2021-11-03 7:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: Introduce definitions to support static calls for kvm_pmu_ops Like Xu
2021-11-05 15:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-08 9:31 ` Like Xu [this message]
2021-11-08 15:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-03 7:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86: Use static calls to reduce kvm_pmu_ops overhead Like Xu
2021-11-03 12:08 ` Yao Yuan
2021-11-04 8:14 ` Like Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47734f2c-5588-1c22-ddcf-c486ceab0d34@gmail.com \
--to=like.xu.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox