Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/pt: Don't die on VMXON

[Alexander Shishkin]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> * Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> >> @@ -3144,6 +3146,8 @@ static void vmclear_local_loaded_vmcss(void)
>> >>  static void kvm_cpu_vmxoff(void)
>> >>  {
>> >>  	asm volatile (__ex(ASM_VMX_VMXOFF) : : : "cc");
>> >> +
>> >> +	intel_pt_vmx(0);
>> >>  }
>> >
>> > Yeah so the name intel_pt_vmx() is pretty information-free because it has no verb, 
>> > only nouns - please name new functions descriptively to after what they do!
>> 
>> I do agree that it can use a better name (and this is a second attempt
>> already).
>> 
>> > Something like intel_pt_set_vmx_state() or so?
>> 
>> Hmm how about intel_pt_handle_vmx()? Ideally, akin to the VMXON/VMXOFF insns, 
>> this could be two functions (intel_pt_handle_vmx{on,off}()) if the global 
>> namespace can take it.
>
> Sure, intel_pt_handle_vmx(0/1) sounds good too. I wouldn't split it into two 
> functions ...

Ok, so I'll use this one then. Thanks!

Peter, here's an updated patch against perf/urgent. It also doesn't
introduce new ACCESS_ONCE()s any more.