[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111107171702.GA11367@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:17:02 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
acme@...stprotocols.net
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/9] KVM: Expose a version 2 architectural PMU to a
guests
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 05:45:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 17:25 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > Since the below programming doesn't use perf_event_attr::pinned, yes.
> > >
> > Yes, that is on todo :). Actually I do want to place all guest perf
> > counters into the same event group and make it pinned. But currently perf
> > event groups are not very flexible. In our usage scenario we can't have
> > one event as a group leader since events are created and destroyed very
> > dynamically. What I would like is to have something like meta event that
> > will group all other real event.
>
> Is there a reason to have them grouped if you pin them all anyway?
Hmm good question. May be we shouldn't pin then since this will prevent
profiling vcpu task on a host while perf is running in a guest, but then
we need to group guest created event to get meaningful result. I think I'll
pin them for now and will look into grouping them later.
--
Gleb.
--
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