Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] KVM/x86: intel_pmu_lbr_enable

[Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>]

On 01/08/2019 10:08 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> On 1/8/2019 1:13 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
>> On 01/07/2019 10:22 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing. I understand the point of maintaining those 
>>>> models at one place,
>>>> but this factor-out doesn't seem very elegant to me, like below
>>>>
>>>> __intel_pmu_init (int model, struct x86_pmu *x86_pmu)
>>>> {
>>>> ...
>>>> switch (model)
>>>> case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM:
>>>> case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EP:
>>>> case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EX:
>>>>      intel_pmu_lbr_init(x86_pmu);
>>>>      if (model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model)
>>>>          return;
>>>>
>>>>      /* Other a lot of things init like below..*/
>>>>      memcpy(hw_cache_event_ids, nehalem_hw_cache_event_ids,
>>>>                     sizeof(hw_cache_event_ids));
>>>>      memcpy(hw_cache_extra_regs, nehalem_hw_cache_extra_regs,
>>>>                     sizeof(hw_cache_extra_regs));
>>>>      x86_pmu.event_constraints = intel_nehalem_event_constraints;
>>>>                  x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = 
>>>> intel_nehalem_pebs_event_constraints;
>>>>                  x86_pmu.enable_all = intel_pmu_nhm_enable_all;
>>>>                  x86_pmu.extra_regs = intel_nehalem_extra_regs;
>>>>   ...
>>>>
>>>> Case...
>>>> }
>>>> We need insert "if (model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model)" in every 
>>>> "Case xx".
>>>>
>>>> What would be the rationale that we only do lbr_init for "x86_pmu"
>>>> when model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model?
>>>> (It looks more like a workaround to factor-out the function and get 
>>>> what we want)
>>>
>>> I thought the new function may be extended to support fake pmu as 
>>> below.
>>> It's not only for lbr. PMU has many CPU specific features. It can be 
>>> used for other features, if you want to check the compatibility in 
>>> future. But I don't have an example now.
>>>
>>> __intel_pmu_init (int model, struct x86_pmu *x86_pmu)
>>> {
>>> bool fake_pmu = (model != boot_cpu_data.x86_model) ? true : false;
>>> ...
>>> switch (model)
>>> case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM:
>>> case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EP:
>>> case INTEL_FAM6_NEHALEM_EX:
>>>      intel_pmu_lbr_init(x86_pmu);
>>>      x86_pmu->event_constraints = intel_nehalem_event_constraints;
>>>      x86_pmu->pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_event_constraints;
>>>      x86_pmu->enable_all = intel_pmu_nhm_enable_all;
>>>      x86_pmu->extra_regs = intel_nehalem_extra_regs;
>>>
>>>      if (fake_pmu)
>>>          return;
>>
>> It looks similar as the one I shared above, the difference is that 
>> more things
>> (e.g. constraints) are assigned to x86_fake_pmu.
>> I'm not sure about the logic behind it (still look like a workaround).
>
> The fake x86_pmu will include all the supported features in host. If 
> you want to check other features in future, it would be useful.
>

OK, I'll think more about if we could have a cleaner way to factor out this.

Best,
Wei