[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120117115558.GB17420@amt.cnet>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:55:58 -0200
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: improve trace events of vmexit/mmio/ioport
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:28:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 05:38 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > On 01/16/2012 11:32 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> - trace vcpu_id for these events
> >
> > We can infer the vcpu id from the kvm_entry tracepoints, no?
> >
>
>
> Thanks for your review, Avi!
>
> Hmm. i think it is hard to do since the vcpu thread can be scheduled
> anytime, one example is as follow:
>
> CPU 0
>
> kvm_entry vcpu 0
> ......
> kvm_entry vcpu 1
> ......
> event1 occurs
> ......
> event2 occurs
>
> It is hard to know the event belong to which kvm_entry?
>
> >> - add kvm_mmio_done to trace the time when mmio/ioport emulation is completed
> >
> > ditto?
> >
>
>
> I think is ok to get the event end time by using kvm_entry.
>
> >
> > Relying on the existing tracepoints will make the tool work on older
> > kernels.
> >
>
>
> We can drop all new events, but unfortunately, the information of the origin
> tracepoints is not enough, at least vcpu_id need be traced in theses events
> to match its events. Yes?
Yes, and if you don't add completed events, you'll have to use kvm_entry
whose collection adds a lot of overhead.
--
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