linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] perf & kvm: Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side

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]

Message-Id: <201004141827.21877.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:27:21 +0800
From:	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, zhiteng.huang@...el.com,
	tim.c.chen@...el.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] perf & kvm: Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side

On Wednesday 14 April 2010 18:19:49 Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/14/2010 01:14 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> >> I wouldn't like to depend on model specific behaviour.
> >>
> >> One option is to read all the information synchronously and store it in
> >> a per-cpu area with atomic instructions, then queue the NMI.  Another
> >> option is to have another callback which tells us that the NMI is done,
> >> and have a busy loop wait until the NMI is delivered.
> >
> > Callback seems too heavy, may affect the performance badly. Maybe a short
> > queue would help, though this one is more complex.
> 
> The patch we're replying to adds callbacks (to read rip, etc.), so it's
> no big deal.  For the queue solution, a queue of size one would probably
> be sufficient even if not guaranteed by the spec.  I don't see how the
> cpu can do another guest entry without delivering the NMI.
> 
> > But I am still curious if we extend the region, how much it would help.
> > Would get a result soon...
> 
> Yes, interesting to see what the latency is.  If it's reasonably short
> (and I expect it will be so), we can do the busy wait solution.
> 
> If we have an NMI counter somewhere, we can simply wait until it changes.
 
Good idea. Of course we have one(at least on x86). There is 
irq_stat.irq__nmi_count for per cpu. :)

-- 
regards
Yang, Sheng
--
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/