On 03.02.15 at 17:02, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote:
On 01/30/2015 09:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.01.15 at 22:44, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote:
+static int __init vpmu_init(void)
+{
+int vendor = current_cpu_data.x86_vendor;
+
+if ( vpmu_mode == XENPMU_MODE_OFF )
+{
On 01/30/2015 09:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.01.15 at 22:44, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
@@ -497,3 +497,39 @@ long do_xenpmu_op(int op,
XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_pmu_params_t) arg)
return ret;
}
+
+static int
On 05.01.15 at 22:44, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpmu.c
@@ -497,3 +497,39 @@ long do_xenpmu_op(int op,
XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_pmu_params_t) arg)
return ret;
}
+
+static int __init vpmu_init(void)
+{
+int
Move some VPMU initilization operations into __initcalls to avoid performing
same tests and calculations for each vcpu.
Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky boris.ostrov...@oracle.com
Tested-by: Dietmar Hahn dietmar.h...@ts.fujitsu.com
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vpmu.c | 112
