From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:11:30 +0200
Message-ID: <20110512131130.GG8707@8bytes.org>
References: <1305129333-7456-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <20110512093309.GD8707@8bytes.org> <4DCBACC7.8080000@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DCBACC7.8080000@siemens.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

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