lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 00/13] perf: KVM: Fix, optimize, and clean up callbacks
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:37:43PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> So I don't mind exporting __static_call_return0, but exporting a raw
> static_call is much like exporting a function pointer :/

Ya, that part is quite gross.

> > The unregister path would also need its own synchronize_rcu(). In general, I
> > don't love duplicating the logic, but it's not the end of the world.
> >
> > Either way works for me. Paolo or Peter, do either of you have a preference?
>
> Can we de-feature kvm as a module and only have this PT functionality
> when built-in? :-)

I agree that many of the for-KVM exports are ugly, especially several of the
perf exports, but I will fight tooth and nail to keep KVM-as-a-module. It is
invaluable for development and testing, and in the not-too-distant future there
is KVM-maintenance related functionality that we'd like to implement that relies
on KVM being a module.

I would be more than happy to help explore approaches that reduce the for-KVM
exports, but I am strongly opposed to defeaturing KVM-as-a-module. I have a few
nascent ideas for eliminating a handful of a random exports, but no clever ideas
for eliminating perf's for-KVM exports.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-17 18:55    [W:0.088 / U:2.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site