Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring

[Joerg Roedel]

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.

Regards,

	Joerg

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/