[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DCBFFF2.3030804@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:42:42 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>
CC: kvm@...r.kernel.org, joro@...tes.org, agraf@...e.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: log directly from the guest to the host kvm buffer
On 05/12/2011 06:39 PM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> >
> > I think that one hypercall per trace is too expensive. Tracing is meant to
> > be lightweight! I think the guest can log to a buffer, which is flushed on
> > overflow or when a vmexit occurs. That gives us automatic serialization
> > between a vcpu and the cpu it runs on, but not between a vcpu and a
> > different host cpu.
> >
>
> hmm. So, basically, log all of these events, and then send them to the
> host either on an exit, or when your buffer fills up. There is one
> problem with approach though. One of the reasons I wanted this
> approach was beacuse i wanted to co-relate the guest and the host
> times. (which is why I kept is synchronous). I lose out that
> information with what you say. However I see your point about the
> overhead. I will think about this a bit more.
You might use kvmclock to get a zero-exit (but not zero-cost) time which
can be correlated.
Another option is to use xadd on a shared memory area to have a global
counter incremented. However that can be slow on large machines, and is
hard to do securely with multiple guests.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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