[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EB7FBD0.7060803@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:40:00 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
acme@...stprotocols.net, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/9] KVM: Expose a version 2 architectural PMU to a
guests
On 11/07/2011 05:34 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 03:22:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 14:33 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ config KVM
> > > select KVM_MMIO
> > > select TASKSTATS
> > > select TASK_DELAY_ACCT
> > > + select PERF_EVENTS
> >
> > Do you really want to make that an unconditional part of KVM? I know we
> > can't currently build x86 without perf due to that hw breakpoint
> > trainwreck, but people were actually wanting to solve that.
> >
> I am fine either way (the only thing is that I can't check that I can
> build kvm without pmu right now). But I doubt that there will be many
> KVM deployment without perf enabled and making it optional will increase
> test matrix. KVM has pretty extensive list of selects already for that
> reason. I let maintainers to decide on this.
I prefer to avoid the select, when possible. But that can be done after
PERF_EVENTS is disentangled from x86.
--
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