[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C01877.7060007@qumranet.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:38:15 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
CC: kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> - perhaps the new fields should be guarded by a #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR
>> (selected by CONFIG_KVM)? that way the (minor) additional overhead is
>> only incurred if it can possibly be used. I imagine that our canine
>> cousin will want to use this as well.
>>
>
> There is also a CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION and a CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING (from
> s390 and powerpc) Which one to use ?
>
Are these options for using the kernel as a guest or host? I'd guess
the former.
> I'm wondering if we can have a more accurate accounting:
>
> - For the moment we add all system time since the previous entering to the VCPU
> to the guest time (and I guess there is some real system time in it ???)
>
> - Perhaps we can sum nanoseconds spent in the VCPU and add it to cpustat when
> these ns are greater than 1 ms ? (I'm trying to make something in this way)
>
I think that it's okay to use the same method as user/system time
accounting. But Ingo the the right man to ask.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists