[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C21C29B.70902@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:15:23 +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, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] ara virt interface of perf to support kvm guest
os statistics collection in guest os
On 06/23/10 03:13, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 09:58 +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Exposing the counters read-only would save a lot of overhead for sure.
>>>> Question is if it is safe to drop overflow support?
>>> Not safe. One of PMU hardware design objectives is to use interrupt or NMI to notify
>>> software when event counter overflows. Without overflow support, software need poll
>>> the PMU registers looply. That is not good and consumes more cpu resources.
>>
>> Here is an idea, how about having the overflow NMI in the host trigger a
>> flag that causes the PMU register read to trap and get special handling?
>> That way you could propagate the overflow back down to the guest.
> That doesn't resolve the issue that guest os software has to poll register.
That is true, but it could set a flag through the para virt interface.
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