On 04/02/2019 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.02.19 at 15:22, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 04/02/2019 13:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 04.02.19 at 12:41, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> @@ -64,37 +54,37 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vcpu *, last_vcpu);
>>>> static int __init parse_vpmu_params(const char *s)
>>>> {
>>>> const char *ss;
>>>> + int rc = 0, val;
>>>> +
>>>> + do {
>>>> + ss = strchr(s, ',');
>>>> + if ( !ss )
>>>> + ss = strchr(s, '\0');
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( (val = parse_bool(s, ss)) >= 0 )
>>>> + opt_vpmu_enabled = val;
>>>> + else if ( !cmdline_strcmp(s, "bts") )
>>>> + vpmu_features |= XENPMU_FEATURE_INTEL_BTS;
>>>> + else if ( !cmdline_strcmp(s, "ipc") )
>>>> + vpmu_features |= XENPMU_FEATURE_IPC_ONLY;
>>>> + else if ( !cmdline_strcmp(s, "arch") )
>>>> + vpmu_features |= XENPMU_FEATURE_ARCH_ONLY;
>>>> + else
>>>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> - switch ( parse_bool(s, NULL) )
>>>> - {
>>>> - case 0:
>>>> - break;
>>>> - default:
>>>> - do {
>>>> - ss = strchr(s, ',');
>>>> - if ( !ss )
>>>> - ss = strchr(s, '\0');
>>>> -
>>>> - if ( !cmdline_strcmp(s, "bts") )
>>>> - vpmu_features |= XENPMU_FEATURE_INTEL_BTS;
>>>> - else if ( !cmdline_strcmp(s, "ipc") )
>>>> - vpmu_features |= XENPMU_FEATURE_IPC_ONLY;
>>>> - else if ( !cmdline_strcmp(s, "arch") )
>>>> - vpmu_features |= XENPMU_FEATURE_ARCH_ONLY;
>>>> - else
>>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>>> + s = ss + 1;
>>>> + } while ( *ss );
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Selecting bts/ipc/arch forces vpmu to enabled. */
>>>> + if ( vpmu_features )
>>>> + opt_vpmu_enabled = true;
>>> If you want to retain original behavior, the condition here would need
>>> to be "!rc && vpmu_features". It's not clear whether your modification
>>> in this regard is intentional.
>> Oh - that wasn't intentional.
>>
>> An alternative, now I think about it, is to just have the <bool>=false
>> case clear vpmu_features. This is new behaviour, but it is more
>> consistent with how other options work, and it wasn't expressable before.
> Generally - yes. But what would e.g. "vpmu=off,ipc" end up doing in
> your new model?
The use of vpmu_features is somewhat weird. "bts" acts as an extra
feature on top of "generally on", whereas "ipc" and "arch" act as
restrictions on top of "generally on".
I'd expect "vpmu=off,ipc" to imply "vpmu=off,ipc,on", and result in
opt_vpmu_enabled=1 and vpmu_features=ipc.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
