RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Xenoprof passive domain support fixes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Bryant [mailto:raybry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: Santos, Jose Renato G
> Cc: DaSilva, Rosilmildo; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yang, Xiaowei
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Xenoprof passive domain
> support fixes
> Renato, et al,
> I hacked my oprofiled as follows
> Index: oprofile-xen-0.9.1/daemon/opd_kernel.c
> --- oprofile-xen-0.9.1.orig/daemon/opd_kernel.c
> +++ oprofile-xen-0.9.1/daemon/opd_kernel.c
> @@ -109,8 +109,11 @@ void opd_create_passive(char const *name
> image = xmalloc(sizeof(struct kernel_image));
> image->name = xstrdup(file);
> // start/end VM should be more accurate, but
> it works now
> - image->start = 0xc0100000;
> - image->end = 0xc0600000;
> + // image->start = 0xc0100000;
> + // image->end = 0xc0600000;
> + // hack for 64 bit test
> + image->start = 0xFFFFFFFF80100000;
> + image->end = 0xFFFFFFFF80600000;
> image->id = id;
> list_add(&image->list, &passive_vmlinux);
> (This is the address range that Rosimildo suggested.)
> Now I get pvmlinux samples for my 64-bit guest test case,
> however, the profile is not any good.
> Almost all of the samples (148747 out 148751) are to a single
> address (from the oprofiled.log):
> Sample 0x167fe0(0): kern (name /boot/pvmlinux2-syms,
> 0xffffffff80100000-0xffffffff80600000) ...
> Rosimildo's patched SVM code works correctly and provides
> approximately the same kernel profile under HVM as we get
> when we run the application under a kernel natively (where
> we've run two simple applications: kernbench and stress vm).
Thanks for the update. It is good to confirm that XenOprofile is
getting the samples right.
> We'd like to get to a point where the SVM and VT versions
> both work, but at the moment, we don't have the expertise to
> create the VT fixes, although Rosimildo has created some
> patches for test purposes.
Ah, OK. So the problem is specific to x64 and VT processors.
It seems you have XenOprofile with passive domain running fine
for 32 bit fully virtualized guests (both Intel and AMD) and for
x64 AMD, right?
I am not sure if I will be able to fix this
since I don't have much expertise on VT.
It would be nice if someone at Intel could take a look at this...
Xiaowei, any suggestion of who can help on getting XenOprofile
passive domain support working for fully virtualized guests on
> Ray Bryant
> AMD Performance Labs Austin, Tx
> 512-602-0038 (o) 512-507-7807 (c)
Xen-devel mailing list