lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring
On 2011-05-12 15:11, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:47:51AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-05-12 11:33, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, I thought about a paravirt-approach instead of implementing a
>>> real PMU... But there are certainly good reasons for both.
>>
>> Paravirt is taking away the pressure from CPU vendors to do their virt
>> extensions properly - and doesn't help with unmodifiable OSes.
>
> Seriously, I think such decisions should be technical only and not
> political like that. The losers of such political decisions are always
> the users because they don't get useful features that are technical
> possible.

Paravirt remains a workaround, useful until hardware provides a solution
for all guests, and that often in an even more efficient way (like for
MMU virtualization).

We do not need to block a PV-PMU for Linux guests (or other OSes that
want to adopt to it), but that will not be a solution for the problem,
that's my point. A PV-PMU may even be useful to demonstrate usefulness
of a virtual PMU the CPU vendors (if they aren't aware of this yet).

Jan

--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-12 15:27    [W:3.924 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site