On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:12 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/22/2010 05:08 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > >> Something that is worrying is that we don't expose group information. > >> perf will multiplex the events for us, but there will be a loss in accuracy. > >> > >> > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > >>> #include<asm/hw_breakpoint.h> > >>> #endif > >>> @@ -753,6 +752,20 @@ struct perf_event { > >>> > >>> perf_overflow_handler_t overflow_handler; > >>> > >>> + /* > >>> + * pointers used by kvm perf paravirt interface. > >>> + * > >>> + * 1) Used in host kernel and points to host_perf_shadow which > >>> + * has information about guest perf_event > >>> + */ > >>> + void *host_perf_shadow; > >>> > >>> > >> Can we have real types instead of void pointers? > >> > > I just want perf generic codes have less dependency on KVM codes. > > > > One way to do that and retain type safety is to have > > struct perf_client { > struct perf_client_ops *ops; > ... > } > > The client (kvm) can do > > struct kvm_perf_client { > struct perf_client pc; > // kvm specific stuff > }; > > the callbacks receive struct perf_client and use container_of to reach > the kvm_perf_client that contains it. Let me double check it. > > >>> + /* > >>> + * 2) Used in guest kernel and points to guest_perf_shadow which > >>> + * is used as a communication area with host kernel. Host kernel > >>> + * copies overflow data to it when an event overflows. > >>> + */ > >>> + void *guest_perf_shadow; > >>> > >>> > >> It's strange to see both guest and host parts in the same patch. > >> Splitting to separate patches will really help review. > >> > > It's a little hard to split the patches if they change the same file. Perhaps > > I could add more statements before the patch when I send it out. > > > > With git, it's easy (once you're used to it): > > # go back one commit: > git reset HEAD^ > # selectively add bits: > git add -p > # commit first patch > git commit -s > # selectively add bits: > git add -p > # commit second patch > git commit -s Thanks for your teaching. > > > >>> @@ -1626,9 +1629,22 @@ void perf_event_task_tick(struct task_st > >>> if (ctx&& ctx->nr_events&& ctx->nr_events != ctx->nr_active) > >>> rotate = 1; > >>> > >>> - perf_ctx_adjust_freq(&cpuctx->ctx); > >>> - if (ctx) > >>> - perf_ctx_adjust_freq(ctx); > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_PERF > >>> + if (kvm_para_available()) { > >>> + /* > >>> + * perf_ctx_adjust_freq causes lots of pmu->read which would > >>> + * trigger too many vmexit to host kernel. We disable it > >>> + * under para virt situation > >>> + */ > >>> + adjust_freq = 0; > >>> + } > >>> +#endif > >>> > >>> > >> Perhaps we can have a batch read interface which will read many counters > >> at once. > >> > > It's a good idea. But that will touch many perf generic codes which causes it's hard > > to maintain or follow future changes. > > > > I'm talking about the guest/host interface. So you have one vmexit and > many host perf calls. I understood what you were speaking. I mean, perf generic codes operate perf_event one by one. At low layer, we just know one perf_event before calling hypercall to vmexit to host kernel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html