+
+void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
+{
+get_vpmu(v);
+
+/*
+ * Guests without LAPIC (i.e. PV) call vpmu_arch_initialise()
+ * from pvpmu_init().
+ */
>>> implication is that PV VPMU is not counted then?
>> No. get_vpmu() is what
> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:10 PM
>
> On 02/21/2017 03:09 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 1:40 AM
> >>
> >> vpmu_enabled() (used by hvm
On 02/21/2017 06:00 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/02/17 17:40, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> @@ -509,15 +498,63 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
>> if ( ret )
>> printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "VPMU: Initialization failed for %pv\n", v);
>>
>> -/* Intel needs to initialize VPMU o
On 02/21/2017 03:09 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 1:40 AM
>>
>> vpmu_enabled() (used by hvm/pv_cpuid() to properly report 0xa leaf
>> for Intel processors) is based on the value of VPMU_CONTEXT_ALLOCATED
>> b
On 17/02/17 17:40, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> @@ -509,15 +498,63 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
> if ( ret )
> printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "VPMU: Initialization failed for %pv\n", v);
>
> -/* Intel needs to initialize VPMU ops even if VPMU is not in use */
> -if ( !is_pri
> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 1:40 AM
>
> vpmu_enabled() (used by hvm/pv_cpuid() to properly report 0xa leaf
> for Intel processors) is based on the value of VPMU_CONTEXT_ALLOCATED
> bit. This is problematic:
> * For HVM guests VPMU
vpmu_enabled() (used by hvm/pv_cpuid() to properly report 0xa leaf
for Intel processors) is based on the value of VPMU_CONTEXT_ALLOCATED
bit. This is problematic:
* For HVM guests VPMU context is allocated lazily, during the first
access to VPMU MSRs. Since the leaf is typically queried before gu
