From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>
Cc: "andi@firstfloor.org" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] perf ignore LBR and extra_regs.
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:02:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140710090204.GU3935@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077014D361B@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
/me reminds you of 78 char text wrap.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:32:09PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > Sure; but what I meant was, check_msr() is broken when ran on such a
> > kernel. You need to fix check_msr() to return failure on these 'ignored'
> > MSRs, after all they don't function as expected, they're effectively broken.
>
> The function is designed to check if the MSRs can be safely accessed
> (no #GP). It cannot guarantee the correctness of the MSRs. If KVM
> applied patch 2 and guest applied patch 1, from the guest's
> perspective, the MSRs can be accessed (no #GP triggered). So return
> true is expected. It should not be a broken.
You're not understanding. I know you wrote that function to do that. I'm
saying that's wrong.
Look at check_hw_exists() it explicitly checks for fake MSRs and reports
them broken.
These fake MSRs _ARE_ broken, they do not behave as expected. Not
crashing is not the right consideration here, we're interested in higher
order correct behaviour.
> The only unexpected
> thing for guest is that the counting/sampling result for LBR/extra reg
> is always 0. But the patch is a short term fix to stop things from
> crashing. I think it should be acceptable.
Patch 2 is fine, patch 1, in particular your check_msr() routine is not.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-10 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-08 16:49 [PATCH V4 1/2] perf ignore LBR and extra_regs kan.liang
2014-07-08 16:49 ` [PATCH V4 2/2] kvm: " kan.liang
2014-07-09 8:32 ` [PATCH V4 1/2] perf " Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 9:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 14:04 ` Liang, Kan
2014-07-09 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 14:32 ` Liang, Kan
2014-07-09 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 15:43 ` Liang, Kan
2014-07-09 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-09 19:32 ` Liang, Kan
2014-07-10 9:02 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=20140710090204.GU3935@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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