From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: KVM PMU virtualization Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:11:50 +0200 Message-ID: <4B87E4B6.2070009@redhat.com> References: <4B86917C.4070102@redhat.com> <20100225173423.GB4246@8bytes.org> <20100226084241.GF15885@elte.hu> <4B87987A.2020302@redhat.com> <20100226104437.GB7463@elte.hu> <4B87AF44.9090702@redhat.com> <20100226114217.GI7463@elte.hu> <4B87B5DE.30503@redhat.com> <20100226120750.GA11578@elte.hu> <4B87BC74.7050207@redhat.com> <20100226133149.GA23422@elte.hu> <4B87CE93.1070906@redhat.com> <4B87D2EA.1090503@redhat.com> <1267194420.22519.605.camel@laptop> <4B87E09C.3080209@redhat.com> <1267196885.22519.643.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jes Sorensen , Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , KVM General , Zachary Amsden , Gleb Natapov , ming.m.lin@intel.com, "Zhang, Yanmin" , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arjan van de Ven , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46033 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964999Ab0BZPNH (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:13:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1267196885.22519.643.camel@laptop> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/26/2010 05:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> That's 7 more than what we support now, and 7 more than what we can >> guarantee without it. >> > Again, what windows software uses only those 7? Does it pay to only have > access to those 7 or does it limit the usability to exactly the same > subset a paravirt interface would? > Good question. Would be interesting to try out VTune with the non-arch pmu masked out. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.