From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937730Ab0CPKut (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:50:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33129 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937713Ab0CPKus (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:50:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:50:21 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Avi Kivity Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , oerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side Message-ID: <20100316105021.GA14344@elte.hu> References: <1268717232.2813.36.camel@localhost> <4B9F19F7.6000309@redhat.com> <20100316072449.GB11881@elte.hu> <4B9F4D74.4090403@redhat.com> <20100316095336.GI7961@elte.hu> <4B9F59DE.1060008@redhat.com> <20100316102052.GC10069@elte.hu> <4B9F603B.4080004@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B9F603B.4080004@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/16/2010 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>>> > >>>>The symbol server's client can certainly access the bits through vmchannel. > >>>Ok, that would work i suspect. > >>> > >>>Would be nice to have the symbol server in tools/perf/ and also make it easy > >>>to add it to the initrd via a .config switch or so. > >>> > >>>That would have basically all of the advantages of being built into the kernel > >>>(availability, configurability, transparency, hackability), while having all > >>>the advantages of a user-space approach as well (flexibility, extensibility, > >>>robustness, ease of maintenance, etc.). > >>Note, I am not advocating building the vmchannel client into the host > >>kernel. [...] > >Neither am i. What i suggested was a user-space binary/executable built in > >tools/perf and put into the initrd. > > I'm confused - initrd seems to be guest-side. I was talking about the host > side. host side doesnt need much support - just some client capability in perf itself. I suspect vmchannels are sufficiently flexible and configuration-free for such purposes? (i.e. like a filesystem in essence) Ingo