On Fri, Aug 15, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > index e1df3c3bfc0d..ad22b182762e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > @@ -6408,6 +6408,8 @@ void perf_load_guest_context(unsigned long data)
> > > task_ctx_sched_out(cpuctx->task_ctx, NULL, EVENT_GUEST);
> > > }
> > >
> > > + arch_perf_load_guest_context(data);
> >
> > So I still don't understand why this ever needs to reach the generic
> > code. x86 pmu driver and x86 kvm can surely sort this out inside of x86,
> > no?
>
> It's definitely possible to handle this entirely within x86, I just don't love
> switching the LVTPC without the protection of perf_ctx_lock and perf_ctx_disable().
> It's not a sticking point for me if you strongly prefer something like this:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> index 0e5048ae86fa..86b81c217b97 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> @@ -1319,7 +1319,9 @@ void kvm_mediated_pmu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> - perf_load_guest_context(kvm_lapic_get_reg(vcpu->arch.apic, APIC_LVTPC));
> + perf_load_guest_context();
> +
> + perf_load_guest_lvtpc(kvm_lapic_get_reg(vcpu->arch.apic, APIC_LVTPC));
Hmm, an argument for providing a dedicated perf_load_guest_lvtpc() APIs is that
it would allow KVM to handle LVTPC writes in KVM's VM-Exit fastpath, i.e. without
having to do a full put+reload of the guest context.
So if we're confident that switching the host LVTPC outside of
perf_{load,put}_guest_context() is functionally safe, I'm a-ok with it.
> /*
> * Disable all counters before loading event selectors and PMCs so that
> @@ -1380,5 +1382,7 @@ void kvm_mediated_pmu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> kvm_pmu_put_guest_pmcs(vcpu);
>
> + perf_put_guest_lvtpc();
> +
> perf_put_guest_context();
> }
>
