[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110513123434.GK8707@8bytes.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:34:34 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, 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 Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:37:43PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 05:24 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> One thing we could do is paravirtualize at a lower level, introduce a
> hypercall for batch MSR reads and writes. So we can use the existing
> PMU semantics and code, just optimize the switch. This is similar to
> what Xen did with lazy cpu updates, and what kvm did for paravirt
> pagetable writes.
In general a good idea. For MSR writes this isn't trivial as well. MSR
reads and writes can cause a #GP, this needs to be represented in this
interface. Can we allow that a batched MSR write changes the operation
mode of the vcpu and so on.
Or we limit this interface to the PMU MSRs, then we are pretty much at
a paravirt-pmu.
> I've considered something similar for mmio - use hypercalls for ordinary
> mmio to avoid calling into the emulator - but virtio uses pio which
> isn't emulated and we don't have massive consumers of mmio (except
> perhaps hpet).
>
> (and we can have a cpuid bit that advertises whether we recommend to use
> this feature for PMU MSRs; if/when we get hardware support, we turn it
> off)
A cpuid-bit that indicates which pmu is prefered is certainly a good
idea.
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