[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE2CFDC.4070402@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:39:24 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
John stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/7] taskstats: Add per task steal time accounting
On 11/16/2010 08:05 AM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>>> Yes and no. The tracepoint idea looks interesting in itself. But that does
>>> not completely replace the per-task steal time. The hypervisor can take
>>> away the cpu anytime, it is still interesting to know which task was hit
>>> hardest by that. You could view the cpu time lost by a hypercall as
>>> "synchronous" steal time for the task, the remaining delta to the total
>>> per-task steal time as "asynchronous" steal time.
>> Right, so there is no way the guest knows about the vcpu getting
>> scheduled, it can only derive the fact from hardware clocks after the
>> fact?
> Correct.
Yes, same for Xen.
J
--
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