On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 06:03:35 +0000,
Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> wrote:
>
> On 2025/03/20 3:51, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 06:38:38PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:51:21 +0000, Akihiko Odaki
> >> <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> wrote:
> >>> What about setting the flag automatically when a user fails to pin
> >>> vCPUs to CPUs that are covered by one PMU? There would be no change if
> >>> a user correctly pins vCPUs as it is. Otherwise, they will see a
> >>> correct feature set advertised to the guest and the cycle counter
> >>> working.
> >>
> >> How do you know that the affinity is "correct"? VCPU affinity can be
> >> changed at any time. I, for one, do not want my VMs to change
> >> behaviour because I let the vcpus bounce around as the scheduler sees
> >> fit.
>
> Checking the affinity when picking the default PMU; the vCPU affinity
> is the only thing that rules the choice of the default PMU even now.
>
> Perhaps we may model the API as follows: introduce another "composite"
> PMU that works on any core but only exposes the cycle counter. Robust
> VMMs will choose it or one of hardware PMUs with
> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_SET_PMU. KVM will choose the default PMU according
> to the vCPU affinity at the point of KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT otherwise. If
> the affinity is covered by one hardware PMU, that PMU will be chosen
> as the default. The "composite" PMU will be the default otherwise.
This makes no sense to me. A VCPU is always affine to a PMU, because
we do not support configurations where only some CPUs have a PMU. This
is an all-or-nothing situation.
More importantly, you keep suggesting the same "new default", and I
keep saying NO.
My position is clear: if you want a *new* behaviour, you *must* add a
new flag that the VMM explicitly provides to enable this CC-only PMU.
No change in default behaviour at all.
I'm not going to move from that.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
