On 06/29/2011 11:38 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Peter, can you look at 1-3 please?
Queued them, thanks!
I was more or less waiting for a next iteration of the series because of
those problems reported, but those three stand well on their own.
Thanks. I'm mired in other work but will retur
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 10:52 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 04:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
> > monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
> > so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-
On 06/13/2011 04:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-user, and the
guest on available resources.
Caveats:
- counters
On 06/16/2011 10:31 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 07:04 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>
>> On 06/16/2011 09:59 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > On 06/16/2011 06:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > main ()
>> >> > {
>> >> > int i;
>> >> >
>> >> > fork();
>> >> > for
On 06/16/2011 07:04 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:59 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 06:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> >
>> > main ()
>> > {
>> > int i;
>> >
>> > fork();
>> > fork();
>
> What happens without the two forks?
>
you have a 1-billion ins
On 06/16/2011 09:59 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 06:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> >
>> > main ()
>> > {
>> > int i;
>> >
>> > fork();
>> > fork();
>
> What happens without the two forks?
>
you have a 1-billion instruction benchmark since there is only 1 process.
David
On 06/16/2011 06:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>
> main ()
> {
>int i;
>
>fork();
>fork();
What happens without the two forks?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to
On 06/16/2011 09:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Sure, I've got a couple of those things lying around:
>
> # perf stat -e instructions:u ./loop_1b_instructions-4x
>
> Performance counter stats for './loop_1b_instructions-4x':
>
> 4,000,085,344 instructions:u#0.00 insns per
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 09:19 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 06/16/2011 09:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 08:08 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> >> Command:
> >> perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
> >>
> >> Guest:
> >>135,522,189,056 instructions #
On 06/16/2011 09:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 08:08 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> Command:
>> perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
>>
>> Guest:
>>135,522,189,056 instructions #0.00 insns per cycle
>>
>>
>> Host:
>>346,082,922,185 instruct
On 06/16/2011 09:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 08:08 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> Command:
>> perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
>>
>> Guest:
>>135,522,189,056 instructions #0.00 insns per cycle
>>
>>
>> Host:
>>346,082,922,185 instruct
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 08:08 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> Command:
> perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
>
> Guest:
>135,522,189,056 instructions #0.00 insns per cycle
>
>
> Host:
>346,082,922,185 instructions #0.00 insns per cycle
How does:
On 06/16/2011 08:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 05:32 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> Seems to be a side effect of running perf-stat in the guest. Running
>> just 'openssl speed aes' in both host and guest shows very similar
>> numbers (for the first 3 columns). Adding the 'perf stat' to the
On 06/16/2011 05:32 PM, David Ahern wrote:
Seems to be a side effect of running perf-stat in the guest. Running
just 'openssl speed aes' in both host and guest shows very similar
numbers (for the first 3 columns). Adding the 'perf stat' to the command
(ie., perf stat openssl speed aes) causes a s
On 06/16/2011 08:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 05:19 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 06/16/2011 08:08 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> > Command:
>> >perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
>>
>> Hmm.. this might be the wrong benchmark for this. I thought
>> openssl-speed was a purely
On 06/16/2011 05:19 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 06/16/2011 08:08 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> Command:
>perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
Hmm.. this might be the wrong benchmark for this. I thought
openssl-speed was a purely CPU intensive benchmark which should have
fairly similar perf
On 06/16/2011 08:08 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> Command:
> perf stat -e instructions openssl speed aes
Hmm.. this might be the wrong benchmark for this. I thought
openssl-speed was a purely CPU intensive benchmark which should have
fairly similar performance numbers in both host and guest. I seem
On 06/16/2011 07:53 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 07:51 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> The qemu-kvm change is setting the pmu version to 1, and your patchset
>> introduces v1 event constraints. So based on intel_pmu_init model=0 is
>> an appropriate model - and a required parameter (-cpu host,
On 06/15/2011 07:51 PM, David Ahern wrote:
The qemu-kvm change is setting the pmu version to 1, and your patchset
introduces v1 event constraints. So based on intel_pmu_init model=0 is
an appropriate model - and a required parameter (-cpu host,model=0).
With that option I get the label as expect
On 06/15/2011 10:27 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 07:08 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> > What does
>> > dmesg say about Perf?
>>
>> [0.050995] Performance Events: Nehalem events, core PMU driver.
>> [0.051466] ... version:1
>> [0.052998] ... bit width:
On 06/15/2011 07:08 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> What does
> dmesg say about Perf?
[0.050995] Performance Events: Nehalem events, core PMU driver.
[0.051466] ... version:1
[0.052998] ... bit width: 40
[0.053999] ... generic registers: 2
[0.0549
On 06/15/2011 07:22 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 03:40 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 06/15/2011 02:57 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > Okay. If you do anything interesting with it, please let us know. I
>> > only tested the watchdog, 'perf top', and 'perf stat'.
>> >
>>
>> For the following
On 06/15/2011 03:40 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 06/15/2011 02:57 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Okay. If you do anything interesting with it, please let us know. I
> only tested the watchdog, 'perf top', and 'perf stat'.
>
For the following I was using the userspace command from latest
perf-core bran
On 06/15/2011 02:57 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Okay. If you do anything interesting with it, please let us know. I
> only tested the watchdog, 'perf top', and 'perf stat'.
>
For the following I was using the userspace command from latest
perf-core branch.
cycles H/W event is not working for me, s
On 06/14/2011 09:11 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>
> Based on Patch 2 you are expecting the guest to have this feature set.
> I've tried +perfmon and +arch_perfmon in the cpu definition for qemu-kvm
> (e.g., -cpu host,model=0,+perfmon) no luck
>
nevermind. I hand applied your qemu-kvm patch and chan
On 06/14/2011 11:48 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 11:33 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> Avi: still no luck:
>> [0.047996] Performance Events: unsupported p6 CPU model 0 no PMU
>> driver, software events only.
>>
>> qemu-kvm next branch, ce5f0a588b740e8f28f46a6009e12cfa72edc51f with your
>>
On 06/14/2011 11:33 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> Avi: still no luck:
> [0.047996] Performance Events: unsupported p6 CPU model 0 no PMU
> driver, software events only.
>
> qemu-kvm next branch, ce5f0a588b740e8f28f46a6009e12cfa72edc51f with your
> perfmon cpuid change. Host and guest are both runni
On 06/14/2011 11:24 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-06-14 19:15, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 06/14/2011 02:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2011 10:55 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 06/13/2011 07:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performan
On 2011-06-14 19:15, David Ahern wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 02:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 06/13/2011 10:55 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2011 07:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU i
On 06/14/2011 02:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 10:55 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 06/13/2011 07:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
>> > monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
>> > so the h
On 06/13/2011 10:55 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 06/13/2011 07:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
> monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
> so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-user, and the
On 06/13/2011 07:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
> monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
> so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-user, and the
> guest on available resources.
Any particular
This patchset exposes an emulated version 1 architectural performance
monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-user, and the
guest on available resources.
Caveats:
- counters that have PMI (interrupt) enabled stop count
33 matches
Mail list logo
