On 5/15/2025 6:48 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Currently invoked at VM creation to
>> + * - Check whether there are existing !exclude_guest events of PMU with
>> + * PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU
>> + * - Set nr_mediated_pmu_vms to prevent !exclude_guest event creation on
>> + * PMUs with PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU
>> + *
>> + * No impact for the PMU without PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU. The perf
>> + * still owns all the PMU resources.
>> + */
>> +int perf_get_mediated_pmu(void)
>> +{
>> + guard(mutex)(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
>> + if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (atomic_read(&nr_include_guest_events))
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> +
>> + atomic_inc(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_get_mediated_pmu);
> IMO, all of the mediated PMU logic should be guarded with a Kconfig. I
> strongly
> suspect KVM x86 will be the only user for the foreseeable, e.g. arm64 is
> trending
> toward a partioned PMU approach, and subjecting other architectures to the
> (minor)
> overhead associated with e.g. nr_mediated_pmu_vms seems pointless. The other
> nicety is that it helps encapsulate the mediated PMU code, which for those of
> us
> that haven't been living and breathing this for the last few months, is
> immensely
> helpful.
I'm fine with this.
>
>> +void perf_put_mediated_pmu(void)
> To avoid confusion with perf_put_guest_context() in future patches, I think it
> makes sense to go with something like perf_{create,release}_mediated_pmu(). I
> actually like the get/put terminology in isolation, but they look weird
> side-by-side.
Agree.
