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

[Joerg Roedel]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:38:17PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 04:06 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:

>> AMD processors don't implement that cpuid leaf.
>
> Right.  But if an AMD processor were to implement that leaf, it would be  
> in a compatible manner, yes?

No official statement, but I guess this is the case. I have to check
back, though.

> A paravirt PMU also has to be implemented on top of perf_events.   
> Otherwise we can't share this resource.  So the only question is what  
> the interface looks like.  The arch pmu is non-optimized, but well  
> specified and somewhat supported in guests.  A paravirt pmu is not so  
> well specified at this point but can be faster (less exits).

I agree that getting the interface right is certainly the most difficult
and important task here.

	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/