| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <503708C8.2090401@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:53:28 +0400 From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> To: Michael Wolf <mjw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <mtosatti@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <avi@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add guest cpu_entitlement reporting On 08/24/2012 03:14 AM, Michael Wolf wrote: > This is an RFC regarding the reporting of stealtime. In the case of > where you have a system that is running with partial processors such as > KVM the user may see steal time being reported in accounting tools such > as top or vmstat. This can cause confusion for the end user. To > ease the confusion this patch set adds a sysctl interface to set the > cpu entitlement. This is the percentage of cpu that the guest system is > expected to receive. As long as the steal time is within its expected > range it will show up as 0 in /proc/stat. The user will then see in the > accounting tools that they are getting a full utilization of the cpu > resources assigned to them. > And how is such a knob not confusing? Steal time is pretty well defined in meaning and is shown in top for ages. I really don't see the point for this. -- 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