[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC6E0D9.1090202@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:48:09 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
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 04/15/2010 12:44 PM, oerg Roedel wrote:
>
>> So, we'd need something like the following:
>>
>> if (exit == NMI)
>> __get_cpu_var(nmi_vcpu) = vcpu;
>>
>> stgi();
>>
>> if (exit == NMI) {
>> while (!nmi_handled())
>> cpu_relax();
>> __get_cpu_var(nmi_vcpu) = NULL;
>> }
>>
> Hmm, looks a bit complicated to me. The NMI should happen shortly after
> the stgi instruction. Interrupts are still disabled so we stay on this
> cpu. Can't we just set and erase the cpu_var at vcpu_load/vcpu_put time?
>
>
That means an NMI that happens outside guest code (for example, in the
mmu, or during the exit itself) would be counted as if in guest code.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists