Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86/vPMU: Add lazy mechanism to release perf_event per vPMC

[Like Xu]

Hi Paolo,
On 2019/10/9 15:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/10/19 05:14, Like Xu wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure is this your personal preference or is there a technical
> > > > reason such as this usage is not incompatible with union syntax?
> > >
> > > Apparently it 'works', so there is no hard technical reason, but
> > > consider that _Bool is specified as an integer type large enough to
> > > store the values 0 and 1, then consider it as a base type for a
> > > bitfield. That's just disguisting.
> >
> > It's reasonable. Thanks.
>
> /me chimes in since this is KVM code after all...
>
> For stuff like hardware registers, bitfields are probably a bad idea
> anyway, so let's only consider the case of space optimization.
>
> bool:2 would definitely cause an eyebrow raise, but I don't see why
> bool:1 bitfields are a problem.  An integer type large enough to store
> the values 0 and 1 can be of any size bigger than one bit.
>
> bool bitfields preserve the magic behavior where something like this:
>
>    foo->x = y;
>
> (x is a bool bitfield) would be compiled as
>
>    foo->x = (y != 0);
>
> which can be a plus or a minus depending on the point of view. :)
> Either way, bool bitfields are useful if you are using bitfields for
> space optimization, especially if you have existing code using bool and
> it might rely on the idiom above.
>
> However, in this patch bitfields are unnecessary and they result in
> worse code from the compiler.  There is plenty of padding in struct
> kvm_pmu, with or without bitfields, so I'd go with "u8 event_count; bool
> enable_cleanup;" (or better "need_cleanup").

Thanks. The "u8 event_count; bool need_cleanup;" looks good to me.

So is the lazy release mechanism looks reasonable to you ?
If so, I may release the next version based on current feedback.

> Thanks,
>
> Paolo