[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C2062D8.20609@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:14:32 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, zhiteng.huang@...el.com,
tim.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] ara virt interface of perf to support kvm guest
os statistics collection in guest os
On 06/22/10 03:49, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 14:45 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Since the guest can use NMI to read the
>> counter, it should have the highest possible priority, and thus it
>> shouldn't see any overflow unless it configured the threshold really low.
>>
>> If we drop overflow, we can use the RDPMC instruction instead of
>> KVM_PERF_OP_READ. This allows the guest to allow userspace to read a
>> counter, or prevent userspace from reading the counter, by setting cr4.pce.
> 1) para virt perf interface is to hide PMU hardware in host os. Guest os shouldn't
> access PMU hardware directly. We could expose PMU hardware to guest os directly, but
> that would be another guest os PMU support method. It shouldn't be a part of para virt
> interface.
> 2) Consider below scenario: PMU counter overflows and NMI causes guest os vmexit to
> host kernel. Host kernel schedules the vcpu thread to another physical cpu before
> vmenter the guest os again. So later on, guest os just RDPMC the counter on another
> cpu.
>
> So I think above discussion is around how to expose PMU hardware to guest os. I will
> also check this method after the para virt interface is done.
You should be able to expose the counters as read-only to the guest. KVM
allows you to specify whether or not a guest has read, write or
read/write access. If you allowed read access of the counters that would
safe a fair bit of hyper calls.
Question is if it is safe to drop overflow support?
Cheers,
Jes
--
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