lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 04/41] perf: core/x86: Add support to register a new vector for PMI handling
From
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
> > index 05fd175cec7d..d1b58366bc21 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
> > @@ -675,6 +675,7 @@ DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(IRQ_WORK_VECTOR, sysvec_irq_work);
> > DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(POSTED_INTR_VECTOR, sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_ipi);
> > DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR, sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_wakeup_ipi);
> > DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(POSTED_INTR_NESTED_VECTOR, sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_nested_ipi);
> > +DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(KVM_VPMU_VECTOR, sysvec_kvm_vpmu_handler);
>
> I vote for KVM_VIRTUAL_PMI_VECTOR. I don't see any reasy to abbreviate "virtual",
> and the vector is a for a Performance Monitoring Interupt.

Actually, I vote for KVM_GUEST_PMI_VECTOR. The IRQ/PMI itself isn't virtual, it
is quite literally the vector that is used for PMIs in KVM guests.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:36    [W:0.536 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site