Markus Armbruster wrote: > Balaji Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Hi all! >> >> Earlier it was suggested that we go ahead with emulating Perf Mon Events in >> exposing it to the guest. The serious limitation in this approach is that we >> end up exposing only a small number of events to the guest, even though the >> host hardware is capable of much more. The only benefit this approach offers >> is >> that, it doesn't break live migration. >> >> The other option is to pass through the real PMU to the guest. I believe >> this >> approach is far better in the sense that, >> > > Do we really have an either/or alternative here? > >
I think that PMU pass through makes more sense, due to the nature of existing non-paravirtualized tools. > There are ways to use the PMU in guests that don't require costly > virtualization of the real PMU. They put the guest's performance > monitoring interface at a level higher than hardware PMU. > On the other hand, they will work only on very new guests. Paravirt pmu makes sense, but it cannot replace the hardware pmu interface. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
