[PATCH v5 32/44] KVM: x86/pmu: Disable interception of select PMU MSRs for mediated vPMUs

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2025, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> 
> On 10/2/2025 2:14 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, Sandipan Das wrote:
> >> On 8/7/2025 1:26 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>> +	return kvm_need_perf_global_ctrl_intercept(vcpu) ||
> >>>  	       pmu->counter_bitmask[KVM_PMC_GP] != (BIT_ULL(kvm_host_pmu.bit_width_gp) - 1) ||
> >>>  	       pmu->counter_bitmask[KVM_PMC_FIXED] != (BIT_ULL(kvm_host_pmu.bit_width_fixed) - 1);
> >>>  }
> >> There is a case for AMD processors where the global MSRs are absent in the guest
> >> but the guest still uses the same number of counters as what is advertised by the
> >> host capabilities. So RDPMC interception is not necessary for all cases where
> >> global control is unavailable.o
> > Hmm, I think Intel would be the same?  Ah, no, because the host will have fixed
> > counters, but the guest will not.  However, that's not directly related to
> > kvm_pmu_has_perf_global_ctrl(), so I think this would be correct?
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> > index 4414d070c4f9..4c5b2712ee4c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> > @@ -744,16 +744,13 @@ int kvm_pmu_rdpmc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned idx, u64 *data)
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -bool kvm_need_perf_global_ctrl_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +static bool kvm_need_pmc_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> 
> The function name kvm_need_pmc_intercept() seems a little bit misleading
> and make users think this function is used to check if a certain PMC is
> intercepted. Maybe we can rename the function to kvm_need_global_intercept().

Yeah, I don't love kvm_need_pmc_intercept() either.  But kvm_need_global_intercept()
feels too close to kvm_need_perf_global_ctrl_intercept().

Maybe something like kvm_need_any_pmc_intercept()?