[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110512142940.GJ8707@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:29:40 +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>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:38:17PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 04:06 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> AMD processors don't implement that cpuid leaf.
>
> Right. But if an AMD processor were to implement that leaf, it would be
> in a compatible manner, yes?
No official statement, but I guess this is the case. I have to check
back, though.
> A paravirt PMU also has to be implemented on top of perf_events.
> Otherwise we can't share this resource. So the only question is what
> the interface looks like. The arch pmu is non-optimized, but well
> specified and somewhat supported in guests. A paravirt pmu is not so
> well specified at this point but can be faster (less exits).
I agree that getting the interface right is certainly the most difficult
and important task here.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists