Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce panic hypercall

Avi Kivity
2011-06-21T08:56:33Z

On 06/21/2011 11:41 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:09:21AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 06/21/2011 09:02 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 07:34:57PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >> >The only two things which came to my mind are:
> > >> >
> > >> > * NMI (aka. ipmitool diag) - already available in qemu/kvm - but requires
> > >> > in-guest kexec/kdump
> > >> > * Hardware-Watchdog (also available in qemu/libvirt)
> > >>
> > >> A watchdog has the advantage that is also detects lockups.
> > >>
> > >And has disadvantage that all time base heuristics are bite us in the
> > >end.
> >
> > The perf-based watchdog counts clocks-not-halted, not time, so it is
> > safe from time issues.
> So it counts only instruction that guest actually executed? That's
> perfect then. How much overhead it has in a guest though?

Should be pretty low, especially if the guest is idle. There were some
negative reports about the pmu From David Ahern, so it needs to be verified.

> > We could make the hardware watchdog cheat in
> > the same way.
> >
> Something like steal time, but for watchdog. But this become complicated fast.
> Watchdog emulation will have to move into kernel for starter.

Why? You can use a performance counter from userspace.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function