From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752702Ab0CQDzG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:55:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17415 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751673Ab0CQDzE (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:55:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA05285.3070903@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:54:45 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" CC: Anthony Liguori , Ingo Molnar , "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 References: <20100316130840.GA24808@elte.hu> <4B9F84C0.70706@redhat.com> <20100316133114.GB575@elte.hu> <20100316155221.GA19699@elte.hu> <4B9FC11A.1070507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100316175243.GC23859@elte.hu> <4B9FC8B2.6070404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100316182809.GA26602@elte.hu> <4BA00E6A.7080903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100317004136.GC17472@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100317004136.GC17472@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/17/2010 02:41 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 06:04:10PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> [...] >> The only way to really address this is to change the interaction. >> Instead of running perf externally to qemu, we should support a perf >> command in the qemu monitor that can then tie directly to the perf >> tooling. That gives us the best possible user experience. >> > To what extent could this be solved with less crossing of > isolation/abstraction layers, if the perfctr facilities were properly > virtualized? > That's the more interesting (by far) usage model. In general guest owners don't have access to the host, and host owners can't (and shouldn't) change guests. Monitoring guests from the host is useful for kvm developers, but less so for users. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.