[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10307518-a095-1a9d-d488-58db88fe16bd@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 23:44:09 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
joro@...tes.org, chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/13] KVM: x86: Add Intel Processor Trace
virtualization mode
On 04/05/2018 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:38:23PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:50:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>> And you still need the module parameter to decide
>>> whether the host is _allowed_ to cause incomplete traces in the guest.
>>
>> Or rather a parameter to decide who wins in case both host and guest want
>> to trace the guest. That's arguably better than having different versions of
>> PT in the guest depending on a module parameter setting.
>
> Yes, that sounds like a much better approach.
I don't think so. The possibility that the host would lose tracing data
just because the guest starts using PT seems hideous to me...
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists