[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DCBDF5B.6000101@siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:23:39 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...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 2011-05-12 15:11, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:47:51AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-05-12 11:33, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, I thought about a paravirt-approach instead of implementing a
>>> real PMU... But there are certainly good reasons for both.
>>
>> Paravirt is taking away the pressure from CPU vendors to do their virt
>> extensions properly - and doesn't help with unmodifiable OSes.
>
> Seriously, I think such decisions should be technical only and not
> political like that. The losers of such political decisions are always
> the users because they don't get useful features that are technical
> possible.
Paravirt remains a workaround, useful until hardware provides a solution
for all guests, and that often in an even more efficient way (like for
MMU virtualization).
We do not need to block a PV-PMU for Linux guests (or other OSes that
want to adopt to it), but that will not be a solution for the problem,
that's my point. A PV-PMU may even be useful to demonstrate usefulness
of a virtual PMU the CPU vendors (if they aren't aware of this yet).
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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