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.
>
> Regards
>
> Chaitanya
