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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20110512093309.GD8707@8bytes.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 11:33:09 +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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:55:28AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
> This not-for-merging patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural
> performance monitoring unit to KVM guests.  The PMU is emulated using
> perf_events, so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-user, and the
> guest on available resources.
> 
> Caveats:
> - counters that have PMI (interrupt) enabled stop counting after the
>   interrupt is signalled.  This is because we need one-shot samples
>   that keep counting, which perf doesn't support yet
> - some combinations of INV and CMASK are not supported
> - counters keep on counting in the host as well as the guest
> - the RDPMC instruction and CR4.PCE bit are not yet emulated
> - there is likely a bug in the implementation; running 'perf top' in
>   a guest that spends 80% of its time in userspace shows perf itself
>   as consuming almost all cpu
> 
> perf maintainers: please consider the first three patches for merging (the
> first two make sense even without the rest).  If you're familiar with the Intel
> PMU, please review patch 5 as well - it effectively undoes all your work
> of abstracting the PMU into perf_events by unabstracting perf_events into what
> is hoped is a very similar PMU.

Gaah, I was just about to submit a talk about PMU virtualization for KVM
Forum :)

Anyway, I thought about a paravirt-approach instead of implementing a
real PMU... But there are certainly good reasons for both.

	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/