linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 16:29:40 +0200
From:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:38:17PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 04:06 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:

>> AMD processors don't implement that cpuid leaf.
>
> Right.  But if an AMD processor were to implement that leaf, it would be  
> in a compatible manner, yes?

No official statement, but I guess this is the case. I have to check
back, though.

> A paravirt PMU also has to be implemented on top of perf_events.   
> Otherwise we can't share this resource.  So the only question is what  
> the interface looks like.  The arch pmu is non-optimized, but well  
> specified and somewhat supported in guests.  A paravirt pmu is not so  
> well specified at this point but can be faster (less exits).

I agree that getting the interface right is certainly the most difficult
and important task here.

	Joerg

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/