On 10/9/2025 8:58 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>> On 10/7/2025 2:22 PM, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 10/6/2025 1:33 PM, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
>>>> Thank you for your responses.
>>>>
>>>> Following change fixes the issue for us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>>>> index 40ac4cb44ed2..487ad19a236e 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>>>> @@ -108,16 +108,18 @@ void kvm_init_pmu_capability(const struct
>>>> kvm_pmu_ops *pmu_ops)
>>>> bool is_intel = boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL;
>>>> int min_nr_gp_ctrs = pmu_ops->MIN_NR_GP_COUNTERS;
>>>>
>>>> - perf_get_x86_pmu_capability(&kvm_host_pmu);
>>>> -
>>>> /*
>>>> * Hybrid PMUs don't play nice with virtualization without careful
>>>> * configuration by userspace, and KVM's APIs for reporting
>>>> supported
>>>> * vPMU features do not account for hybrid PMUs. Disable vPMU
>>>> support
>>>> * for hybrid PMUs until KVM gains a way to let userspace opt-in.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU))
>>>> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU)) {
>>>> enable_pmu = false;
>>>> + memset(&kvm_host_pmu, 0, sizeof(kvm_host_pmu));
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + perf_get_x86_pmu_capability(&kvm_host_pmu);
>>>> + }
>>> Can we expect a formal patch soon?
>> I'd like to post a patch to fix this tomorrow if Sean has no bandwidth on
>> this. Thanks.
> Sorry, my bad, I was waiting for you to post a patch, but that wasn't at all
> clear. So yeah, go ahead and post one :-)
Sure. Would post it now.
