[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708211006.42938.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:06:42 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com>,
"laurent.vivier@...l.net" <laurent.vivier@...l.net>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] Réf. : Re: [PATCH 0/4] Virtual Machine Time Accounting
Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Glauber de Oliveira Costa:
> Although I don't know KVM to a that deep level, I think it should be
> possible to keep the virtual cpus in different process (or threads),
> and take the accounting time from there. Perfectly possible to know
> the time we spent running (user time), and the time the hypervisor
> spent doing things on our behalf (system time).
I disagree here. First thing, you dont want to have the virtual cpu in a
different process than the hypervisor control code for that cpu. Otherwise
communication has to be made via IPC.
Secondly, Its not qemu/kvm that does the accouting. Its existing userspace
code like top/snmp agents and clients! etc. that would require additional
knowledge which thread is guest code.
I personally like the approach Laurent has taken. Maybe it needs some polish
and maybe we want an account_guest_time function, but in general I think he
is doing the right thing.
Christian
-
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