On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:23:39PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-05-12 15:11, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > Seriously, I think such decisions should be technical only and not > > political like that. The losers of such political decisions are always > > the users because they don't get useful features that are technical > > possible. > > Paravirt remains a workaround, useful until hardware provides a solution > for all guests, and that often in an even more efficient way (like for > MMU virtualization). Fully agreed. And todays x86 CPUs lack proper support for virtualizing the PMU. That will hopefully change but users want the feature today. > We do not need to block a PV-PMU for Linux guests (or other OSes that > want to adopt to it), but that will not be a solution for the problem, > that's my point. A PV-PMU may even be useful to demonstrate usefulness > of a virtual PMU the CPU vendors (if they aren't aware of this yet). Right, if users actually use the virtual PMU this probably increases the priority for proper hardware support. Joerg -- 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
