Re: [RFC PATCH 04/41] perf: core/x86: Add support to register a new vector for PMI handling

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
> > index 05fd175cec7d..d1b58366bc21 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
> > @@ -675,6 +675,7 @@ DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(IRQ_WORK_VECTOR,		sysvec_irq_work);
> >  DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(POSTED_INTR_VECTOR,		sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_ipi);
> >  DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR,	sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_wakeup_ipi);
> >  DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(POSTED_INTR_NESTED_VECTOR,	sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_nested_ipi);
> > +DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(KVM_VPMU_VECTOR,	        sysvec_kvm_vpmu_handler);
> 
> I vote for KVM_VIRTUAL_PMI_VECTOR.  I don't see any reasy to abbreviate "virtual",
> and the vector is a for a Performance Monitoring Interupt.

Actually, I vote for KVM_GUEST_PMI_VECTOR.  The IRQ/PMI itself isn't virtual, it
is quite literally the vector that is used for PMIs in KVM guests.